The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 30, 2017, 11:19 PM   #26
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Howdy

Been having problems with Photobucket recently, but hopefully that is ironed out now.

The Winchester Model 1892 was basically a scaled down version of the Winchester Model 1886. Before John Browning developed the Model 1886, all the Winchester lever guns had Toggle Link actions. This would include the original 1860 Henry design and the 1866 design, which both fired the 44 Henry Rimfire round. Not a particularly powerful round, it carried a 216 grain bullet and held about 26 grains of Black Powder. When the Model 1873 Winchester was developed, a new centerfire cartridge, the 44-40 round was developed for it. The bullet weight was reduced to 200 grains, but the powder charge was increased to 40 grains of Black Powder. While the bronze framed Henry and Model 1866 rifles were strong enough for the 44 Henry round, the 1873 model featured an iron, and later steel frame, to be strong enough for the heavier powder charge.

I have removed the side plates of this Uberti replica Model 1873 to show how the toggle links functioned. In the first photo, the links are lined up so the pivot points are all in line. This puts the rifle in battery, ready to be fired.






In this next photo, the lever is all the way forward. The extension of the lever has drawn the middle pivot of the links down. The rear pivot pin is attached to the frame, so when the middle pivot moves down, the links fold and the front pivot pulls the bolt back, extracting a spent round, and cocking the hammer. The carrier lever has ridden up, carrying a new cartridge to the chamber level. You can see the top of the brass carrier protruding above the frame. When the lever is closed, the bolt will move forward again, shoving the new round into the chamber and the links will again be in line, and the rifle will be in battery, ready to fire the next round. This is the way all the toggle link rifles worked.



This system was also used in the Model 1876 Winchester, basically a larger version of the Model 1873. The Model 1876 was chambered for longer, more powerful cartridges, such as the 45-75 WCF, which held about 75 grains of powder and delivered about twice the punch of the 44-40.

The drawbacks of the Toggle Link guns was they did not have locking lugs in the modern sense. They depended on the Toggle Links to be lined up straight for the gun to be in battery. If the trigger happened to be tripped before the links were fully lined up, the recoiling cartridge would drive the bolt back, folding the links. Very bad things could happen. That is why from early on the Model 1873 had a lever safety, preventing the trigger from being pulled until the lever was fully closed.

The other weakness of the Toggle Link guns was the frame was not solid. It was basically a skeletonized frame, with side plates covering the mechanism, as can be seen in my photos. The sidplates did not add any significant strength to the frame.




When John Browning designed the Model 1886 Winchester, he started from scratch. Gone were the Toggle Links, replaced by two sturdy lugs attached to the lever and straddling the bolt. When the lever was closed, the locking lugs were in place locking the bolt to the frame like a bank vault, and the bolt was not going anywhere. The Model 1886 did not have a lever safety because it did not need one. If the trigger were tripped before the lever was fully closed, the lugs were raised enough to prevent the bolt from going anywhere.

This photo shows a Model 1886 at the top and a Model 1892 at the bottom, with their actions open. The locking lugs are attached to the levers and have been drawn down with the levers. You can see how massive the locking lugs were on the model 1886. The two cartridges are a 45-70, for the 1886, and a 44-40, for the 1892. Each cartridge is crammed full of Black Powder, so their relative sizes are an indication of their relative power.






Here is a view looking down at the top of the 1892, with the bolt in battery and the locking lugs in position.






The Model 1892 was kind of the little brother of the 1886. The internals were not exactly the same, there had been some modifications made, but the locking system was pretty much the same, just scaled down for the smaller cartridge. The Model 1892 was first made available for the venerable 44-40 round, later it was chambered for 38-40, 32-20, 25-20, and later still the 218 Bee. In addition to the Model 1892 being stronger than the Toggle Link Model 1873, with the same barrel length the 1892 was a full pound lighter, and it cost less to produce than the 1873.

The Model 1892 was overbuilt when it first appeared. I have no idea what the pressure is of a Black Powder 44-40 round, but I can tell you that for my first couple of years in CAS I fired nothing but Smokeless 44-40 ammo through that Model 1892, which was made in 1894. Clearly a Black Powder era gun, but the lock up is plenty strong enough and the barrel wall is thick enough that I never hesitated to fire Smokeless ammo through it. Not something I would do with an old revolver. The current SAAMI Maximum pressure spec for 44-40 is kept purposely low at 13,000 CUP, because there are so many old 92s like mine floating around. Compare that to the SAAMI Maximum pressure for 44 Magnum of 36,000 PSI. (Yeah, I know that CUP and PSI do not correlate exactly, but they are not all that far off.) Modern Model 1892 rifles made by Rossi are chambered for 44 Mag and they can take the pressure. Just for the fun of it I looked up 454 Casul. SAAMI Max pressure is a whopping 65,000 PSI. I'm sure the Rossi 92s chambered for 454 Casul have been proofed for that cartridge and can take the pressure.


HOWEVER..............

The Model 1892 is a relatively light rifle. Remember I said they averaged a pound less than the 1873? Looking at the Rossi web page, it looks like their carbines have 16" and 20" barrels. A bunch of years ago I won a Rossi Model 1892 rifle chambered for 45 Colt, with a 24" barrel, as a door prize at a big CAS match. I never fired it, I sold it for the down payment on my Henry. It did weigh about the same as my 44-40 24" Winchester. And yes, the action was rough and needed some stoning. But I sold it and did not put any money or work into it.

But a '92 carbine chambered for 454 Casul is going to have a nasty recoil. I have no interest whatsoever in such a beast.

And here is one more thing to consider. At the top of this photo is my 44-40 Winchester 1892 rifle. At the bottom is a Winchester 1892 Saddle Ring carbine. Study the photo carefully. There is more than barrel length that defines the difference between a rifle and a carbine, at least there was in the old days with Winchesters. Notice the rifle has a forend cap and the magazine is suspended from the barrel by a dovetailed hanger. The carbine has no forend cap, and the magazine is suspended by barrel bands. But most important, look at the shape of the buttplates. Winchester rifles typically had a crescent shaped buttplate, carbines typically had a less sharply curved buttplate. I can tell you for a fact that if you put that crescent shaped buttplate on the meaty part of your shoulder and fire a heavy recoiling round you are going to regret it. The sharp points of the crescent will dig into your shoulder and it will hurt like the dickens. I learned this the hard way many years ago when I had a cut down 30-30 Winchester Model 1894 rifle. The barrel had been shortened to 20", and the magazine cut down to half length so it was very light. But it had that crescent shaped butt plate. I was very young, and knew very little about rifles. When I shouldered that rifle and fired my first round of standard 30-30 ammo, the points of the crescent dug into my shoulder and it hurt like the dickens. After about five rounds my shoulder was screaming and I was flinching like crazy. It was not until many years later with my 1892 that I learned one does not place the crescent on the meaty part of the shoulder, but instead hikes the butt out a bit further so the points of the crescent encircle the bicep. This way, the points keep the rifle from sliding up or down, and it does not hurt.






So, a word to the wise. If you want a '92 chambered for a round that has heavy recoil, give some thought to that butt plate.

Last edited by Driftwood Johnson; August 31, 2017 at 07:56 AM.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 09:43 AM   #27
the possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 555
Quote:
But a '92 carbine chambered for 454 Casull is going to have a nasty recoil. I have no interest whatsoever in such a beast.
Naw, I wouldn't describe it as nasty. It's about like shooting goose loads out of a 12 gauge. The big recoil pad on the Rossi must help.
the possum is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 06:36 PM   #28
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,869
Driftwood, another post chock full of information. Thanks again as always.

My question about the strength of the 92 action was mainly focused around one thing: Could I load .45 Colt up to .454 pressures and not shoot the gun apart and be safe? Would I be better off trimming .454 cases down to .45 Colt length and loading them instead?

The .454 Rossi's are apparently rare and discontinued. If I want a .454 level of power, a 92 in .45 Colt seems to be the only option.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 07:21 PM   #29
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
The big recoil pad on the Rossi must help.
That's a good point to expand on the 454/480 has a recoil pad, the carbine steel plate on the 44 mag/45 Colt aren't real comfortable when you push them.
My 44 is fun at the 240gr@1200fps level but the 300gr@1500 aren't for plinking if you know what I mean.
Quote:
Could I load .45 Colt up to .454 pressures and not shoot the gun apart and be safe?
I wouldn't push it to the full 65K of the 454, but there's absolutely no reason to 45 Colt @ 25-30k is a plenty to kill anything that walks.
Quote:
Would I be better off trimming .454 cases down to .45 Colt length and loading them instead?
No real need to do that, modern 45 Colt brass is plenty strong for what you need.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 08:58 PM   #30
the possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 555
I didn't realize the Rossi .454 had been discontinued. Dang. So much for that.

I guess there's still several options from Big Horn Armory if ya want an heirloom quality piece.
the possum is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 09:17 PM   #31
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,869
Quote:
I wouldn't push it to the full 65K of the 454, but there's absolutely no reason to 45 Colt @ 25-30k is a plenty to kill anything that walks.
I guess 325 grains going 1500 or more fps will suffice then.

Quote:
there's still several options from Big Horn Armory if ya want an heirloom quality piece.
lol. For those amounts, I'd rather buy a used Kawasaki KLR than that.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old September 2, 2017, 09:16 AM   #32
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Great pictures Driftwood!

Quote:
The drawbacks of the Toggle Link guns was they did not have locking lugs in the modern sense. They depended on the Toggle Links to be lined up straight for the gun to be in battery. If the trigger happened to be tripped before the links were fully lined up, the recoiling cartridge would drive the bolt back, folding the links. Very bad things could happen. That is why from early on the Model 1873 had a lever safety, preventing the trigger from being pulled until the lever was fully closed.
I have been of the opinion that toggle link actions are weak and springy, but I did have an interesting discussion on the web with someone who said if the toggle links had positive mechanical stops, then it would be very rigid. That is, if it is in line. The toggle link is easily knocked out of alignment. From what I see, it appears as if the toggle pins are carrying load in the Win 73. That would make it less rigid. Also, the load path is all the way back to the end of the receiver making the whole system less rigid and requiring heat treated steel for the whole receiver. All the traditional lever actions are rear locking, but in this example, the whole bolt is under compression, not, lets say, 75%. I would also think with all the pieces and parts the toggle is easier to get out of tolerance.

Toggle links were used in the P08 Luger and in machine guns, but by and large, that system has been replaced. I mean it worked but since the 1860's a lot of designs that worked have been replaced with designs that worked as well, were cheaper to make, and easier to maintain.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 01:22 PM   #33
tangolima
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,738
Toggle link action is an elegant design. Its apex was semi auto and full auto applications. Given the state of art at the time, it could be the best idea available.

The 3 link pins are supposed to be in line when locked up. In practice the middle pin is always slight over-the-center to have more secure lock-up. If the gun manages to fire before full lock up, certainly bad thing can result, as in out-of-battery ignition in any firearms. Safety against such incident is ubiquitous, not only in toggle-link actions.

The "skeleton frame" with side plate is not a weak design. Recoil force doesn't go through the frame. However the long links are certainly not the best for stout shock, neither do round pins as load bearing surfaces.

It is a elegant design, but certainly not the best in strength and economy, and hence it was replaced after serving its purpose in history. It shone brightly and faded away. The relics are here to remind us the path man has taken. They don't make them any more, so it may not be a bright idea to stress the gun unnecessary.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
tangolima is online now  
Old September 4, 2017, 01:43 PM   #34
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
I once read that the fad of converting a .44-40 (or .38-40) Winchester 92 to .44 Magnum was a bit risky. Not because the action wouldn't stand the backthrust but because the barrel shank was of no larger diameter than needed for .44-40 and could bulge from a top Magnum load.

'Zat so?

If so, does the Rossi .454 have a larger barrel tenon or do it just depend on "modern materials?"
Jim Watson is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 08:08 PM   #35
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
The toggle link can be a strong action, but the 1873 is not the best application. (As an example, compare the size of the link pins in a Parabellum pistol with those in an 1873 Winchester. The link pins don't "carry the load", but they do wear over time and eventually the rifle will develop excess headspace, which will allow more of a "running start" and more headspace, and so on. And don't forget that those modern "Winchester" copies are made from good quality steel, properly hardened, where the original receivers were wrought iron (little better than cast iron), which is why they were case hardened.

In a recent bull session, the question came up as to where one could even find receiver material today as bad as that used in the original guns. The consensus was that it would probably have to be custom ordered as nothing sold on the commercial market today for any similar purpose would be that bad.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 08:16 PM   #36
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
James,no problem ! Harbor Freight!! Some of their iron is "special"
HiBC is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06295 seconds with 8 queries