Pedersoli Model 71 in 45-70

[salvo]

http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/?item=A ... 04&lang=en

News to me, I think I will stick my Winchester and Browning's in 348WCF!

[glazer1972]

Looks good. Depending on the price might make me rethink my opposition to Winchester/Winchester clones.

[salvo]

It is nice that a few new/copies of past leverguns are being made.

[Pete44ru]

IIRC, Kiowa was saying he either saw one, or laid hands one one, at S.H.O.T. this past January.

.

[Mike D.]

Hmmm, interesting. It "appears" to be a long tang version, too. I have a feeling that it will be priced in the $2K range, so it's not something that I might consider. Original 71s are easily available for that.

[Sixgun]

While the rifle may be good I feel its a bad business venture. There's enough originals and Brownings to fill the need.----------Sixgun

[1886]

Hmmm, interesting. It "appears" to be a long tang version, too. I have a feeling that it will be priced in the $2K range, so it's not something that I might consider. Original 71s are easily available for that.

Hi Mike, Hope you are well. I do not think it will approach 2K. No disrespect intended. I think it will be under $1200.00. Maybe wishful thinking by me. Regards, 1886.

[.45colt]

If You think in the next 12 months You are going nuts from the ringing in Your ears don't worry it's just Me throwing all the spare change I can lay My hands on in the big jar. . I have long wanted an '86 in 45-70 and this may be as close as I will ever get. wait and See.

[Grizzly Adams]

Well, glad to see them do an "1886/71." Pedersoli is noted for high quality, so it should be a keeper. Still, a 71 in 45-70 is kinda like reverse evolution, IMHO! Should have chambered it in 348WCF.

[Pathfinder09]

I agree with Gizzly Adams. If it is truly a 71 it should be a .348 WCF, If it's .45-70 should be an 86. They should have at least gotten that right. Just my $.02.

[rjohns94]

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... =1&t=24622

[Mike D.]

As previously noted, there is a front sling swivel, but where is the rear one? The gun appears to be a "deluxe" long tang version and needs a swivel inletted into the buttstock. One more thing, where is the bolt mounted peep sight?

[1886]

As previously noted, there is a front sling swivel, but where is the rear one? The gun appears to be a "deluxe" long tang version and needs a swivel inletted into the buttstock. One more thing, where is the bolt mounted peep sight?

I like your suggested upgrades, Mike! 1886.

[Kansas Ed]

They could sell 1000 to purists in .348. or sell 10000 to enthusiasts in 45-70. So which do you think will keep them in the market? Besides, not that many people are thrilled with the .348 compared to the 45-70...me included.

Ed

[Leverluver]

As much as a purist and lover of 348 I am (own three), I would agree. Too many people want the simple way out and don't want to get into cartridges that can (at least to them) seem more like working with wildcats. Lesson in point, look at all the people that wanted a 76 then whined about no load data. Well duh, didn't they check that before they bought the darn thing. Well the fact is, they didn't.....and don't. The simpler you keep things, the more of them you will sell.

[Pathfinder09]

Then call it an 1886 extra lite. If it isn't a .348 is isn't a Mod 71, it's an 86.

[Grizzly Adams]

Then call it an 1886 extra lite. If it isn't a .348 is isn't a Mod 71, it's an 86.

+1

[Leverluver]

+2

[Kansas Ed]

Then call it an 1886 extra lite. If it isn't a .348 is isn't a Mod 71, it's an 86.

I guess that would be up for debate...It's not an EL because of the forearm/pistol grip/factory checkering. What makes a 71 vs an '86? The configuration? Different locking lug angles, better steel, the .348, the profile (forearm, half mag, pistol grip)? All of the above? If you looked at the model designation change as the engineering improvements rather than the cartridge change you could go either way. There was an 8 year drought between the introduction of the '71 and the last '86. Perhaps they brought back the 71 because of complaints in losing the '86. Ask yourself this...What would have been the sales numbers of the 71 if it had been alternatively offered in the 45-70? I've never been able to see what "improvement" the .348 was over the 45-70 in that '86LW/71 package was. For the life of me I can't find one thing that the .348 did that the 45-70 wasn't capable of doing better in the same package.

Funny I should say all this, because I currently have (ok it's my wifes ) a 71 in the safe, but no 45-70's. But I've always felt that the .348, no matter how glamorous to the levergunner and reloader is, was a poorly designed cartridge with too many inherent flaws to be a "good" cartridge.

Not looking for a fight...just posting another viewpoint...no matter how unpopular

Ed

[Mike D.]

Actually, there was about a 4 month "drought" between the last 1886's manufacture and the intro of the "new" Model 71. The last '86 was cranked out in late 1935, and the 71 showed up a scant few months following. Madis' information is incorrect in that he states no 1886 models were produced after 1932. I own two of the last guns off the assembly line with serial numbers above 159930. The last rifles produced had a mixture of both Nickel Steel and Winchester Proof Steel barrels installed on them. These guns had the small ramp for the front sight, but later manufactured .33 WCF barrels made for replacement wore the same ramp as the 71. 159956 is the highest recorded number, but it has been suggested that 160000 may also be "out there". I would very much like to see that gun.

[Kansas Ed]

Interesting Mike. Per chance where did your info come from that places your rifles so late? I'd like to read that source for future reference. It's not the first time Madis had some questionable information. I've seen some other examples that had Madis wrong too. Did you get the letters and that's what led you there?

Ed

[Mike D.]

Ed, most of it came from my research and that of John Madl and W.L.Porter. I refused to believe the SWAG methods used by other authors, but the reality of it is that records for the 1886 are very spotty after serial number 14600. By 1920 both the .45-90 WCF and 50-110 EX cartridges were dropped, with the .45-70 following a year later. The .45-70 was reintroduced in the late '20s and available until the end, but most of the last rifles were .33 WCF TDs. BTW, the .33 caliber 1886s were not called Extra Lightweights. That title pertained to other calibers produced with rapid taper Nickel Steel barrels. The nomenclature for the .33s was simply Rifle, caliber .33WCF.
This distinction faded and collectors began to refer to all similar 1886s as Extra Lightweights. There are many variations of the 1886, as with most other models, and John Madl did an excellent job in outlining some of them in his book, Identifying Your Model 1886 Winchester.

[kaschi]

For a change of pace regarding caliber, Pedersoli could make their new rifle in 444 Marlin. I always thought an 86 would have been a good home for that round.

[Lawyer Daggit]

I would love to see it available in .348- and maybe this will come. I agree it will sell better in an over the counter caliber.

[jlchucker]

I agree with Gizzly Adams. If it is truly a 71 it should be a .348 WCF, If it's .45-70 should be an 86. They should have at least gotten that right. Just my $.02.

An old Winnie 348 was the favorite rifle of a now-deceased great-uncle of mine. This relative had the job of gardener/overseer for the properties of a local mill owner. Much of his job involved wandering the woods of his employers. An avid hunter and fisherman, he killed many deer with his 348. Although he owned some bolt action rifles, he always preferred his levergun, probably bought in the general store of the town he lived in since arriving in the US several years before the first World War. I don't know what he used before the 348 came out--but it was probably something big-bore, and a levergun. There's lots more 45-70's around that 348's. I agree with Grizzly and Pathfinder. They should be offering a 348.

[2X22]

I have early originals in both 71's and '86's. I see absolutely no problem with the 45-70 in a 71 platform. In fact, I think it would be neater than a skeeters peter

2x22

[bdhold]

they certainly made a fine-looking rifle.

[RANisbet]

In regard to the comment about the side mounted peep sight.
The long tang 71s were the early versions.
I do not believe these early versions were drilled for or had a receiver mounted peep sight.
I think they either had a standard Buckhorn or the Integral Bolt Peep sight.
I think the receiver peep sights began to appear after the short tang was adopted.
I am not the final expert on this subject, so its just my observation from looking at many 71s.
Bob Nisbet

[Bruce Scott]

On the Pedersoli site they call it an 1886/71 - with the following blurb:

"Produced between the 1936 and the 1957, with important technical variations to the previous Model 1886 designed by John M. and Matthew S. Browning, it is identified as the first rifle chambered for a specific cartridge (.348 WCF) as well as for the last "big frame" lever action rifle produced by Winchester. Advertised as The Universal Big-Game Rifle, the Model 71 was welcomed with enthusiasm by the big game hunters. Our company is particularly proud to produce this famous rifle of the first half of the twentieth century, chambered for a well known historical cartridge which is today easily available, with a limiting 3 shot plug for the magazine. Barrel and magazine plug blue finish; walnut pistol grip stock and forend. Available in the Fall of 2010"

http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/default ... 40&lang=en

[CowboyTutt]

I think it may have been said already, but there is simply not enough market appeal to re-releasing the 348 Win when there are enough originals out there to fill the need. Meanwhile, the 45-70 is "the bomb". Everyone and their Mother makes one. You can't grab your cat by the tail and swing him around your living room even one time without knocking all your 45-70 guns off the wall!

Pedersoli makes a fine gun, and David Pedersoli is a fine guy who won't release a gun until its right. Learned that from his distributors who I met at the SHOTSHOW in 2008.

I think its a wise choice on his part.

-Tutt

[457121]

Hmmm, interesting. It "appears" to be a long tang version, too. I have a feeling that it will be priced in the $2K range, so it's not something that I might consider. Original 71s are easily available for that.

Hi Mike, Hope you are well. I do not think it will approach 2K. No disrespect intended. I think it will be under $1200.00. Maybe wishful thinking by me. Regards, 1886.

since some of their muzzleloaders are in the $1000-$1200 range i doubt this rifle will be priced that inexpensive.

[Pete44ru]

IIRC the MSRP is supposed to be about $1200-1400.

.

[KirkD]

I just took a look ...... THAT is a beautiful rifle. I don't care what they call it, it looks gorgeous and it is in one of my all-time favourite calibers, the 45-70 Government. If I knew anyone thinking of getting a Marlin 1895 45-70, I'd tell them to forget it (as nice as one of those are) ..... get yourself one of these beauties. No tang safety and no rebounding hammer.

[Lawyer Daggit]

I must say it is true that everyone makes a 45/70 today, but I seem to remember a time when I was but an 18 year old that no one did.

Similarly, when I acquired my .350 Rem Mag model 7MS I owned one of only a handful in Australia. Now with the short action craze others have taken up the caliber, and, while not a common item, the round is no longer anything like obsolete down here.

While the .35 cal is a bit of a grave yard of excellent chamberings not picked up by shooters, the reality is it would only take a handful of journalists pushing a new model to make it take off. After all, wasn't that what happened when Jack Connor populised the Winchester .270 at a time when the smart choice would have been to buy an 06 necked down to 7mm (the .280) and benefited from wider choice of projectiles.

I note Craig Boddington is a Winchester 71 shooter, and I hang onto a hope that this round may rise in popularity.

[Lawyer Daggit]

Funny I should say all this, because I currently have (ok it's my wifes ) a 71 in the safe, but no 45-70's. But I've always felt that the .348, no matter how glamorous to the levergunner and reloader is, was a poorly designed cartridge with too many inherent flaws to be a "good" cartridge.

Not looking for a fight...just posting another viewpoint...no matter how unpopular


Kansas E, you rubbish the 35 cal and you are not looking for a fight....They are definitely fighting words to me,,,

It seems to me the big advantage of the 35 cal is it still offers the reasonably flat shooting of the 30 cal but with a much larger surface area and thus better killing power ( at similar velocities).

To me the problem with 40 and above cals is that to launch that payload fast enough to deliver a reasonably flat ride for the bullet takes a lot of powder- with all that goes along with that.

[Lawyer Daggit]

Funny I should say all this, because I currently have (ok it's my wifes ) a 71 in the safe, but no 45-70's. But I've always felt that the .348, no matter how glamorous to the levergunner and reloader is, was a poorly designed cartridge with too many inherent flaws to be a "good" cartridge.

Not looking for a fight...just posting another viewpoint...no matter how unpopular


Kansas E, you rubbish the 35 cal and you are not looking for a fight....They are definitely fighting words to me,,,

It seems to me the big advantage of the 35 cal is it still offers the reasonably flat shooting of the 30 cal but with a much larger surface area and thus better killing power ( at similar velocities).

To me the problem with 40 and above cals is that to launch that payload fast enough to deliver a reasonably flat ride for the bullet takes a lot of powder- with all that goes along with that.

[CowboyTutt]

I don't know much about the 348 Win although I'm fairly certain from past comments I've read on this board that people seem to have a difficult time getting an accurate load for it. However, our own Jim Taylor is a fan of the cartridge if I remember right. With dedication, I'm sure a good load can be found. I decided to open up my 11th edition of Cartridges of the World to read up on it. Regarding the 348 it states:

The 348 is an excellent cartridge for any North American big game at close range. Due to the flat-point bullets required by the tubular magazine of the Model 71 rifle, it is not a particularly good long-range cartridge. The 150 grain bullet has very poor ballistic properties due to its short, flat shape, and the 200 or 250 grain bullets are preferred for anything beyond 100 yards.

I really don't think Ed was "rubbishing" the 348 as I know the man personally and he has quite an extensive collection of obsolete chamberings in his rifles and enjoys loading for them.

But based upon this admitedly one source, it does not seem to suggest that the 348 is a particularly good long-range, flat shooting cartridge either but at its best at moderate ranges.

-Tutt

[457121]

I don't know much about the 348 Win although I'm fairly certain from past comments I've read on this board that people seem to have a difficult time getting an accurate load for it.

that's interesting as i can't find a load that my Browning 71's won't shoot well. they are hands down the most accurate lever guns i own (i have three) and i personally think they would shoot MOA or under if scopes were easily mountable. with receiver sights it gets downright spooky. i can get repeatable 1.5" five shot groups all day with Hornady 200 grainers or cast 250gr. loads.

[CowboyTutt]

Well, there you go then! Obviously it works just fine for you.

I like some 35 caliber cartridges myself but went with the 358 Win instead. Obviously it wasn't commercially hugely successful either. Go figure.

-Tutt

[Kansas Ed]

I see Tutt has come to my defense, as I haven't been around much lately. Like I said before, it's my personal opinion. I'm not a fan of the .348 for several reasons. Not to say that it didn't work, just that I think it could have been much better. First, the body taper was too extreme and was characteristic of brass stretch and bolt thrust. Second it was based off of the 50EX case rather than the more available 45gov case. Third it has a really odd ball bullet size for reloaders, which makes the availability of good bullets a sore point for me. Yes, there are bullets available, but not many good bullets. If it had less body taper it would be better IMO, and if it had been based on a more common case it would have been better. But then most of the same could be said of the 300 H&H also. I really like the .35's, just not the .348. I especially like the old 35 Winchester, and the .358 designs. Somehow, I see the .348 as an engineering compromise. I suspect there were several really good designs put forward for the 71 cartridge, but inside influences built in a compromise for whatever reasons that I just don't like. Just me....

Ed

[Leverluver]

Be careful what you wish for. The 348 AK (no taper) does not fed anywhere near as well as the standard case. You may not appreciate the reasons why they did what they did but they did have reasons.

[2X22]

I don't know much about the 348 Win although I'm fairly certain from past comments I've read on this board that people seem to have a difficult time getting an accurate load for it.

that's interesting as i can't find a load that my Browning 71's won't shoot well. they are hands down the most accurate lever guns i own (i have three) and i personally think they would shoot MOA or under if scopes were easily mountable. with receiver sights it gets downright spooky. i can get repeatable 1.5" five shot groups all day with Hornady 200 grainers or cast 250gr. loads.

I am always somewhat shocked, at least mildly surprised, when I heard people still talking about how tough it is to find an accurate .348. Nothing can be further from the truth, I think it is one of those old wives tales that seems to have a life of its own. I own, and have access to, over a dozen .348's and I'm not aware of even 1 that can't stay under 2" at 100 yards and I have a 1936 model that occasionally break 1" at 100 yards and I go home disappointed if I have any groups larger than 1 1/2". That is with 200's and 250 in JSP's and 200's, 225's, 250's and 265's in cast. The round is just plain all around accurate.

2x22

[CowboyTutt]

Then I stand corrected Gents. It does sound like it is a plenty accurate cartridge. I just remember a vague impression from some old posts that must not have been true, or a long time ago. Sorry!

-Tutt

[Lawyer Daggit]

Kansas Ed. I think the .45 70 would have been less successful than the .348 in the 1930's. The 45 70 was a black powder round that essentially died, only to receive the Lassarus treatment over half a century later.

Even when I was a youngster starting out on shooting centre fire rounds, in the 1970's if I had tried to find a box of 45 70 I would have looked hard, and reckon I would not even have turned up a box of reloadable cases.

Infact, I recall reading a book written and printed in the 60's that described the round as obsolete.

[Ysabel Kid]

If you don't want yet another caliber to feed, but want a 71, this seems like a good way to go.