wanting thoughts on Winchester 1886 rifles

[smokenrust]

Okay, this is just some ramlin thoughts of questions...

I have been hunting for a Winchester 1886 40-65 rifle for years, and finely picked up an 1886 33WCF takedown instead made in 1915. I was pagen thru a site and seen a fellow making new barrels and got me to thinking about if I made a new set for the 1886 in a 40-82... So I asked him about what he thought and he said the action was strong eough for modern powder in the 40-65 but the 40-82 would be to much. but didn't seem to think shooting 45-70 or even the 45-90 with modern powders would hurt it...

Can the receiver stand the pressure of modern powders in a 40-82?
If one could shoot smokeless in the 40-82, what should the rate twist be??
I like the octagon barrels and they can be had up to 32" ...
So, what would you choose if you were to make a new barrel assembly on this old takedown?
Also was wondering/considering something in the 38-56 or the 38-70WCF... or maybe 348 ? Guess scratch the 348 idea,, gun is already a 33WCF... LOL

Next question, What does the suffix " A " desinate after the serial number? I did google search and had a random of answers leaving me more bewildered. LOL
Think thats enough questions for now.

[OldWin]

What's wrong with the original 33WCF barrel? If the bore is good, the 33 is a good shooter and with a nickel steel barrel gives the option of using jacketed bullets.



Just sayin'

[Shrapnel]

What's wrong with the original 33WCF barrel? If the bore is good, the 33 is a good shooter and with a nickel steel barrel gives the option of using jacketed bullets.



Just sayin'

This is a valid point.

Also I would recommend looking for an original 40-65 and leave the other gun alone. These aren't plastic/stainless steel junkers of today, these old Winchesters were well made and deserve more care. It also sounds like your gunsmith buddy is more interested in the build than he knows about old guns.

There is absolutely NO reason to chamber a gun of any kind in 40-82 unless you are going to shoot black powder. Smokeless loads will still leave a lot of room in the 40-65 case. I have 2 original 40-65 1886's and they work fine on deer and other medium sized game with cast bullets and 5744 powder.

If the 33 isn't what you want, to try and make a 40-65 out of it is wrong. We don't own these guns, we just take care of them for the years that we have them. They were around before we were born, they will be here long after we are gone, don't screw it up...

[AJMD429]

I'd not want to 'mess up' a vintage gun unless it was already messed up (bent barrel or something).

On the other hand, "modern powders" are NOT necessarily going to give "higher pressure" than black powder does. Some, if not most, of them surely CAN do that, but selecting the right one and using the proper amount is the key. All these black-powder-substitutes are "modern" but pretty safe, and there are others with pressure curves making them suitable.

I'm not any sort of expert on the above, but I've read much from those who are, and I've never seen credible refutation of their data.

Still, I'd more likely make up the 'new' gun (if you can call a 40-65 that ) on a new-manufacture receiver, just so's not to mess up a vintage piece. If you're not dead-set on a levergun, make one up on a Ruger No. 1 action; that would be a neat setup.

[smokenrust]

Thanks old Win, shrapnel and AJMD;
Old Win, The 33WCF has a nice bright and crisp bore in it... Not changing that. Here is a pic.

140-7.jpg

Shrapnel, I am not going to molest the 33 TD end, but I WAS thinking of going to look at making a whole new forward end and magazine in the 40-82 because the 33 was app. length of 40-82 so nothing would interfer... The gunsmith wanted me to NOT consider the 40-82 but go up to the 45-70 which the ammo is readily available for. LOL
Shrapnel, "Also I would recommend looking for an original 40-65 and leave the other gun alone." Your wish is my command. this time anyways. Yesterday, a fellow sent me this pic.

Win1886_01.JPG

1892 Win 1886 40-65 that has been messed with, the barrel sanded hard enough and made the writings thin and the bluing looks poorly done. IMO. Seller said it had good bore in it.. I will see, it will be headed my way next week....Should be good enough for shooting and maybe some hunting sometime.
AJMD, I did think about a model 71 that was just the reciever and butt stock, somebody else must of had the same thought because it was sold in no time at all. LOL
Probably should be careful with the 40-65 when I start to load for it... Now will have to start gathering some actual info on the loads.
But first, I need to gather brass for it as well as the 33 and for a 38-56. Hope to find correct headstamp casings... or better yet, loaded and ready to shoot. LOL

[geobru]

I have an original 40-82 that was made in 1887. I shoot smokeless loads in it, but keep velocities at BP rates.

The 40-82 had a 1:28 twist and was designed as an express cartridge and shot a 260 grain bullet. I have heard that it will handle a 300 grain bullet, but I haven't had access to any to try, so I can't say for sure.

The 40-72 was essentially the same as the 40-82 except it had a faster twist rate (1:22) and could handle heavier bullets. Factory loads came in 300 and 330 grains. You could shoot a 40-82 in a 40-72, but the 40-82 wouldn't stabilize the heavier bullets. If you have a barrel built, and want to shoot heavier bullets, go with a faster twist.

MikeD, one of our quorum members who has passed on, had a beautiful 40-82 that was built in the early 1900s and had a nickel steel barrel. He shot that gun at ~2000 fps and the receiver never moaned a bit. That said, your question about whether or not the receiver would take smokeless load pressures, I would say that by 1915, smokeless powder was pretty well established, and that shouldn't be an issue.

There is a lot of room in the 2.3" 40-82 case, so you get into the issue of using a filler or not. I use a filler to improve accuracy at BP speeds, but I don't think that MikeD used a filler when he reloaded for his 40-82 because he was using more powder than I did.

I really like my 40-82, but I will admit that it is the most persnickety caliber that I reload for. I'd look at the 40-65 or the 45-70 with their 2.1" case if I were going to build a new front end for a takedown 86. Just mu $0.02.

[7.62 Precision]

I think there was some misunderstanding about the project - it is a takedown rifle, so he can set up a second chambering without messing up the rifle at all. As far as why or what the need is, or the practicality, much of what we do with these guns is because of what we like or want, not for practical reasons.

On the ammo question, looks like someone with more knowledge than I has already answered.

[Mike Hunter]

My thoughts:
The 33 WCF was originally designed as a smokeless cartridge.

The 1886 can handle the 40-82 with smokeless powders as long as you keep the pressures down to BP loading.

It’s a 100 year old gun, with 100 year old steel, something to keep in mind.

The “A’ at the end of the SN was to note a factory change: Screw in magazine tube.

I make complete front end assemblies for Winchesters, to include the 1886; Identical in every way to the originals. Although Winchester did offer barrels up to 36 inches, they made less than a dozen take down 1886s with longer than 26 inch barrels…. For a reason.

V/R

Mike

[buckeyeshooter]

If you are looking for another barrel set, why not.... just load carefully. If you want a gun in that chambering............. Turnbull Manufactures a really nice 1886 and builds it like you want. You could get a modern gun with stronger steel and shoot any load smokeless or black you liked.

[7.62 Precision]

If you are looking for another barrel set, why not.... just load carefully. If you want a gun in that chambering............. Turnbull Manufactures a really nice 1886 and builds it like you want. You could get a modern gun with stronger steel and shoot any load smokeless or black you liked.

It's likely Mike Hunter could do the same on a modern 1886. Have you seen his work?

For many, the fun is in shooting the historic guns using historic type loads, and don't really have a need for the expense of making a modern rifle to shoot a somewhat obsolete cartridge.

On the other hand, I really like the modern Winchesters because I can use them hard with no remorse.

[smokenrust]

It is interesting to read different thoughts and opinions on the 1886 and the 40-82 chambering.
Geobru, Thanks for the info on the rate of twist, but from what I was thinking, if I was to continue in that direction with a new front , I would maintain the 260 grain. --- 1:28 vs 1:22 .... and your saying the 260 grain is not affected by the 1:22 bore... or is the bullet even better stabilized? If a barrel is made, would it be wise to just hae it cut at the faster rate?
MikeD. sure had the answers on the old 1886 rifles's and knew what he talked about from what I thought. Wish he had compiled his knowledge so others could have learned from his years of experiance.

7.62 Precision, --- precisely ... "what we like or want, not for practical reasons." YUP, and sometimes maybe (if it works out,) just to prove to the young uns what an old relic can do...

Mike Hunter, old steel does fatigue over time if used really hard all its life, and yet some of that stuff still amazes me what the old steel was like... Like some old bolts that been out in the weather for 80 years and put a wrench to them and the burrs came off the threads...Or some having rusted to nothing. Try that with modern bolts that layed out for 10 years, they twist the bolt off. or need heat or something. LOL
Thank you for the info on the "A" suffix that it denoted a change on the rifle from the standard production...
And you left me with another question, "they made less than a dozen take down 1886s with longer than 26 inch barrels…. For a reason" of why didn't they make more than they did of the long barrels? Was the the attaching threads not strong enough, the weak point of the rifle? Or the extra length deemed not necessary?

Buckeyeshooter, In the scheme of things, about 5 years ago I seen a 'like new' Winchester 1886 that had the safety already deleted, the long range sight added, in a 45-90 takedown for a thousand dollars and I was not smart enough to put a bid on it... and it had several boxes of bullets that went with it.

Thanks, Smokenrust

[Dusty Texian]

Hey Smokenrust, for what its worth. I have an original 1876 Winchester 40/60wcf that had a horrible bore in it when I purchased the rifle. The barrel had been cut-down to 22" . I re-lined the barrel and chose a ROT of 1 turn in 22" it slugs out @ just under 0.406. I realize you are considering a smokless load in your new .40 cal. barrel 86, but thought you may be interested to know that my most accurate load for my 40/60 wcf uses a 255gr. (with my mix) cast bullet from an original 40/82 Winchester mold drops out @ 0.406. The old 76 with the 22" barrel and a stiff load of Swiss 2ff bp. can push that bullet just under 1500fps. And is very accurate . It just flat dumps deer and wild hog ,right in thier tracks.The 40/82 WCF would be a great choice in my book and a 260 gr. bullet should be fine with the ROT of 1 in 22"with smokless. Good Luck with your project. ,,,DT

[Mike Hunter]

I’ve taken old Winchester frames and barrels, cut them up and had the steel analyzed. The steel used is somewhat equivalent to today’s SAE 1018. I won’t go into great detail on tensile strength/yield strength of steels, let’s just say that 1018 isn’t used much (if at all) in firearms anymore.

Your bolt comparison is not quite fair, most modern US manufactured G 2 bolts are made out of 12L14 commonly known as “Screw stock” for easy machining. Aside from easy machining, 12L14 is also known for its quick rusting and lack of weldability. If it’s Chinese made, who knows what steel was used. For a true comparison take a US made G 5 or 8 made out of SAE 41xx and see how well it does.

Just like you wouldn’t take a 100 year old Model T Ford to race in NASCAR, these old guns were not designed to take heavy modern loads.

Barrels over 26 inches get heavy fast, especially with fully loaded, full length mag tubes. Barrels over 30 inches would have two magazine bands to help hold the magazine. This all places a lot of weight on the frame and TD lug.


Mike

[Streetstar]

Liking this thread --- lots of info on 86's --- i am not the caretaker of one yet, but am on a casual lookout (that is, if i happen across one at the right price, i'll be ready)

[Shrapnel]

The use of 40-82 as a cartridge in the build was asked about using smokeless powder. 40-82 cases are not a good choice and a 40-65 would be better. There is too much room left inside a 40-82 case when using a safe smokeless load...

[geobru]

It is interesting to read different thoughts and opinions on the 1886 and the 40-82 chambering.
Geobru, Thanks for the info on the rate of twist, but from what I was thinking, if I was to continue in that direction with a new front , I would maintain the 260 grain. --- 1:28 vs 1:22 .... and your saying the 260 grain is not affected by the 1:22 bore... or is the bullet even better stabilized? If a barrel is made, would it be wise to just have it cut at the faster rate?

Smoke,
If you build a barrel and have a faster twist cut, it would give you a little more flexibility as far as the weight of bullets you could use are concerned. I'm not sure if a 1:22 twist would stabilize a 260 grain bullet any better than a 1:28. It seems that it might stabilize the bullet out farther, but a 40-82 is not ever going to be a long range weapon. I have never shot my 40-82 over 200 yards, but at 200 yards, that gun can hit an 6" circle most every time. If I had he eyes that I had 35 years ago, I'm sure I could reduce the size of the target!

[dtrice]

If the 33 wcf isn't desired, I could help it find a new home.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
I have a 1924 vintage 86 take down in 33 Winchester and have no plans on changing it or moving it on. Fine cartridge and still very capable of thwapping permanently any critter I will ever see in the 48 states. I would spend some time enjoying that 33 getting to know all about what it offers.
I cast my own lead so am never without ammo. 45-70 brass is easily made into 33 Winchester so that covers the only drawbacks to that good caliber.
With all the modern lever actions around it is easy to lay hands on more power if needed. The jap 86's are fine shooters plenty strong for any shoulder mashing ammo you could chamber. Used ones show up at shows and are reasonably priced.
Mike in Peru

[southfork]

I also have an original Winchester 1886 in 40-82. It is a caliber I plan to reload for just as soon as "Captech International" (formerly Jamison) does a run of new 40-82 brass. They told me that they expect do get a run of the brass completed by late Summer 2015. I wouldn't think they would put money into manufacturing 40-82 brass unless the caliber had a decent demand. Seems like i read once that 40-82 was the second most popular chambering in the 1886 Winchesters. There must be a bunch of 1886 leverguns out there in that caliber just waiting to be given a rebirth.

[geobru]

I also have an original Winchester 1886 in 40-82. It is a caliber I plan to reload for just as soon as "Captech International" (formerly Jamison) does a run of new 40-82 brass. They told me that they expect do get a run of the brass completed by late Summer 2015. I wouldn't think they would put money into manufacturing 40-82 brass unless the caliber had a decent demand. Seems like i read once that 40-82 was the second most popular chambering in the 1886 Winchesters. There must be a bunch of 1886 leverguns out there in that caliber just waiting to be given a rebirth.

Southfork,
You can resize 45-90 Starline brass to 40-82 using a regular FL sizer die. I size it by pushing it into the die until it gets hard to pull the handle, release, rotate and add a bit of sizing wax, repeat until its sized, then trim to length. If I had had to wait for 40-82 brass, I would have lost 5 years of shooting and load development.

There were a lot of 40-82's that were hunted with. Quite a few of them got ugly bores due to black powder corrosion, and were re-bored to 45-70. One of the things with the original bores is that they were often oversize. A soft .406 bullet would obdurate with BP, but with the advent of smokeless powder, the .406 bullet wouldn't engage the rifling and tumbled out of the barrel.

[smokenrust]

Well the thoughts on building a 40-82 is on hold for now, the Winchester 1886 40-65 arrived thursday and it needs to have some boolits found for it... and maybe the bore slugged too.
The rifle has been messed with for sure, sanded down and reblued, but the fellow didn't get all the rust gone because I can see and feel it so I rubbed it down with oil. The internals look good and has lots of grease in there... but the bore looks nasty, hardly any grooves left, at least to my way of thinking. Were the lands shallow in them old guns? I shoved a hard wad down with my cleaning rod to see if the wad would turn my cleaning rod, but the rod did not turn, so I do not know what the actual rate of twist is on it, but tried to follow a grove down by eyesight and a wire for a half a turn and it seemed like I would get app. 12" thus that would make a 24 " twist... but I am not positive if I was accurate enough.
Yea, you can see the grooves, tried to take a picture of them and all I got was some fuzzies...

bore.JPG

Looks better here in the fuzzie picture than it does to my eye. LOL

The 33WCF sure has a crisper shiner bore... going to have to get some bullets for that too ... so don't have time to mess with another caliber... unless one of them just happens to find their way here.

dtrice, I got it now and am not letting it go until I find out if it is worth keeping or not

Missionary, most of them japs are 45-70 or 45-90, was not planning on going to those calibers... unless

Southfork, that is what I started thinking was the 40-82 sure seems like it is more prevalent than any of the other calibers except for the 45-70.

[buckeyeshooter]

If you are looking for another barrel set, why not.... just load carefully. If you want a gun in that chambering............. Turnbull Manufactures a really nice 1886 and builds it like you want. You could get a modern gun with stronger steel and shoot any load smokeless or black you liked.

It's likely Mike Hunter could do the same on a modern 1886. Have you seen his work?

For many, the fun is in shooting the historic guns using historic type loads, and don't really have a need for the expense of making a modern rifle to shoot a somewhat obsolete cartridge.

On the other hand, I really like the modern Winchesters because I can use them hard with no remorse.

No doubt Mike Hunter could do a great job. He does beautiful work. I mentioned Turnbull for 2 reasons. First, they advertise an 1886 that they manufacture in house to your specifications. Second, I own one and it has met my expectations in every way. Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to buy one of Mike Hunters customs.

[KirkD]

I had a 40-82 completely rebuilt by Mike Hunter and was very pleased. The rifle is absolutely gorgeous.