Old photo of hunter with 1876 lever.

[rangerider7]

[Terry Murbach]

1886....ARE YOU SURE...IT LOOKS ODD TO ME...THE ACTION LOOKS TOO LONG...MAYBE...IT LOOKS LIKE A MARLIN RIFLE ACTUALLY...maybe...

[J Miller]

By the shape of the lever and the long receiver I'd say 1876 Winchester.

I've been told you need a scoped flat shooting rifles to get those pronghorns, guess this hunter didn't read Guns and Ammo.

Joe

[rangerider7]

Now you guys have got me to thinking. Maybe that's not a 1886. mmmmmmm.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

I copied it and blew it up. The position of the loading gate behind the carrier area of the receiver, what appears to be a dust cover on top, and the shape of the trigger guard area of the lever suggests it's 76.

[gamekeeper]

My vote would be "76". I like that guys duds too .

[rangerider7]

There you go.

[Ysabel Kid]

'76

[Buck Elliott]

A real close look reveals the profile of the sideplate, even in the OP. It's a '76.

the shape of the lever is the other identifier.

[KirkD]

Yep, that's a '76. You can tell by looking at the sideplate in the photo. For the '76, it comes almost right back to the back of the receiver. Looking at the cartridge belt, I'd say it is probably a 45-60. As for Pronghorn hunting, here I though that no Pronghorns were shot prior to the modern flat shooting high velocity cartridges came out in the 20th century!

[Buck Elliott]

You mean like the .32-20...?

[336A]

Wow that is a great picture thanks for posting. I have to agree with Kirk, those cartridges sure do look as though they are 45-60. I've always wondered if average folks back then actually used those cartridge belts when I see them in the Cabelas catalogs. I have always considered buying one but just don't see the point.

[Borregos]

Another good one, thanks

[Buck Elliott]

When you're out there, in the middle of it all, a cartridge belt makes a lot of sense, especially when you've run out of MTM cartridge boxes, and you don't want things to rattle and clank while you're puttin' the sneak on a nice little pronghorn buck, like the one in the photo.

They also beat diggin' in a bag or pocket for more ammo.

[rangerider7]

At a closer look, I think this hunter has spurs on.

[KirkD]

You mean like the .32-20...?

I've always wondered if average folks back then actually used those cartridge belts when I see them in the Cabelas catalogs. I have always considered buying one but just don't see the point.

I think I've carried cartridges just about every which way, including pockets, a box in my knapsack, loose in my knapsack, and even in my mouth (used to do it every day with 22 Rimfire when hunting with a single shot as a teenager), but in my experience, a cartridge belt beats them all. When you need a cartridge in a hurry, I sure don't like rooting around in my pocket. When I'm out wilderness canoeing and camping, my cartridge belt has an ample supply. I don't sleep with my belt, but it is right beside my sleeping bag so if I need it in the night, I'm ready to go. I don't know how I did without one for so many years.

[FWiedner]

Hmm... That must be a big buck of a fellow...

[L_Kilkenny]

Hmm... That must be a big buck of a fellow...

I'll second that. While goats ain't very big that guys looks to have some height to him, well built at that.

LK

[KCSO]

What say 16-17" horns? I would guess he's got a good 80 pounds over his shoulder. Looks like spur straps to me too.

[Griff]

I'm goin' to say the fellar is around 6' tall, and that buck's horns might run 11" - 12", maybe as big as 14".

The average length of a fellar that's 6' upper arm is 11-½". That appears to the same length as the buck's horns. The only other perspective would be the man's height in relation to the rifle's overall length. If that's a 28" rifle, then he's MUCH taller than even today's average height and that's a HUGE buck. A 22" barreled carbine is much more likely, and fits the perspective better.

[Buck Elliott]

'76 Carbines were almost universally stocked purt'-near to the muzzle. This one has rifle-style magazine hanger. While it may be a "short rifle," the guy is still mighty long and tall, compared to the overall size of the rifle, which is no small machine, in any guise.

[L_Kilkenny]

I'm looking at the gun and IMO, that thing is a full rifle with a 28" barrel. Anything shorter and the stock and receiver would be way outta of kilter proportion wise. Overall length for a '76 is 44" from what I have read.

Now I measure the gun on my screen and it measures 3.75". Divide 44" by 3.75 and you come up with 11.73" per inch. Now I measure him at 6.5" (gotta kinda guess where his head ends up by his shoulder height, I didn't include the boot heel) and take that times 11.73 which puts him at around 76" tall. Now take into account that the gun is angling slightly away and that would make the gun seem shorter in the picture and add even more to his height. (Edited to add: refigured it and if I take into account that the gun is angled and add an additional .25" to my measurement of 3.75" (totaling 4" now) it would indeed change his height but make him a shorter 72") My guess: between 72" and 76" .

Is my math right?

LK

[.45colt]

Man do I wish We knew more about this Hunter. this is makeing Me hungry just lookin at that Pronghorn. .Great picture. thank You.

[Don McDowell]

Interestingly it looks like when you blow the picture up, those last 3 cartridges on the left are smaller 38's or 40's assuming the ones on the right are 45's.
Looks like the guy is about 6ft, the antelope is probably a 2 maybe 3 year old, 12 inches on the horns, nice spread tho, probably weighs around 75-80 lbs. You get about 25 -30 lbs of boned out meat from one of those if you head shoot him,and trim pretty close to the bone.

[tman]

anybody that's read GUNS AND AMMO knows you can't kill an antelope with a levergun. must be a fake picture. nice try.

[Bogie35]

And he's not even wearing camo???? It must be a photo shop job!

bogie