Winchester Receiver Steels

[@carlcarlamos9055]

Thank you. It’s refreshing to have a little science and measurement once in a while rather than endless conjecture. Maybe you can continue this exercise later, and test up through the newer rifles. Stay warm and take care.

[@johnmollet2637]

That was one sweet piece of rebar!

[@thecinnabar8442]

It's certainly an interesting piece of history. It was a gift from a dear friend and is on display in my shop. Thanks so much for your support, John!!

[@timmytwodogs]

Aha, I found the tests for your info : The factory conducted tests on the strength and reliability of the action to answer concerns by customers. These tests will astound collectors and shooters who have stated the Model 1876's toggle link action is "weak." In response to a letter sent to the company by Charles Hallock, Esquire, of Forest & Stream magazine, Oliver Winchester responded by telling about the tests the factory accomplished on the 1876 rifle. He indicated that engineers first started the tests by removing one of the toggle links and fired 20 rounds (this was with .45-75 W.C.F. cartridge with 350 grain bullet) with no effect. They restored the missing link then went through 6 more trials starting with a charge of 105 grains of black powder, behind a 700 grain bullet! The comment "worked well" is noted. They then increased the charge of powder to 165 grains behind 3 bullets (1,150 grains) and that "worked well." From there, they increased the powder charge to 203 grains and added more bullets until they reached 1,750 grains of lead (five 350 grain bullets). This also "worked well." Finally, they added one more bullet, bringing the total weight to 2,100 grains, and things began to happen. The comment was, "Breech pin slightly bent. Arm working stiff." The seventh and final test was again 203 grains of powder but this time six Martini bullets weighing 480 grains each (2,880 grains) were used. "The charge bent the breech pin, blew out the side plates, split the frame and otherwise disabled the arm," was the comment. Oliver Winchester noted that in this seventh trial, the shell had burst into fragments and the escape of gas at the breech did the damage." Not too bad for a "weak" action.

[@thecinnabar8442]

Thanks for sharing that. I actually went over this test in a previous episode titled, "How to blow up an old Winchester."

[@borkwoof696]

Hey there, very interesting! Do you have a source for your comment?

[@timmytwodogs]

@@borkwoof696 I'll try and find a link for you.

[@patrickshannon4854]

When you tested the M70 receiver, seeing the trigger assembly reminded me of how beautifully simple that older trigger design is. I always thought it to be, along with a Mauser trigger, one of the best triggers on a sporting rifle. I was keenly disappointed with the new M70 'classic' which features a more conventional modern trigger assembly. What is your experienced opinion regarding these older M70 triggers?

[@ricktaylor5744]

Great video Mark. Boy that is some hi class rebar. Must be a interesting story behind that. That Ackley test is one I have read back in the late 60's it demonstrates that you should remove the oil from the chamber before firing. Thank you for the video always worth watching!

[@thomaswilson517]

Good snowy day video. That 66 struck the memory of McWhorter interview with Yellow Wolf a Nes Pierce war veteran. He spoke of having a 66 in his mother's lodge at the onset of the hostillities. Thanks.

[@CameronMcCreary]

Very nice presentation Mark. When making parts for these older firearms one has to always test for hardness and alloy if possible.

[@WildRose_Weaponry]

What an awesome video, thank you so much for sharing the knowledge!

[@tacman2893]

Howdy! Sure appreciate your videos. Love the old winchesters and marlins. Love watching how you repair those old guns! It would be a heck of a great adventure to shoot/hunt on the Cinnabar Ranch! Just amazing scenery.

[@oregonoutback7779]

I absolutely love these science projects. Always learn a bunch. Thank you. Also ... your snowy Outback looks very similar to mine :)

[@timmytwodogs]

Fascinating ! This is very informative and changes much of what I thought those receivers were made of. I read an article years ago where some Winchester employees tried to destroy an 1876 by using progressively heavier charges of smokeless powder in [ I believe ] .45/75. Some of the details elude me but they finally had to remove one of the toggles before the rifle failed and this blew out the side plates. It would be interesting to test a '76 on that machine.

[@jeffgrier8488]

Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to make the video and share the info with us!

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you Mark. Superb content. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.

[@Leverguns50]

That was super interesting, makes me wonder how the modern Japanese receivers stack up against the originals

[@YouTubePrimer-zm1xi]

If they make the receiver like they make samurai swords. The steel should be even better

[@chrischiampo7647]

Thanks Again Mark 😀😊😀 Happy Trails To You as Well 😀

[@michaelhayes7471]

Nice scenery I haven't seen snow in two years great video

[@timmytwodogs]

We have plenty in Alberta LOL !

[@JoeMartinez-eb3xc]

You pretty much confirmed a thought that I had. That the case hardening of receivers was more for cosmetic reasons than for making them stronger. I thoroughly enjoyed your demonstrations in this video!

[@gilbertdelgado6703]

Great video, very informative. Watching you operating the hardness tester brought back memories from when I worked at our local Community College. I was good friends with the Machine Tool Tech and I would, on occasion, bring in old gun parts to check the hardness. What comes to mind is an old Colt Woodsman that had been through a house fire and it didn’t seem to survive. I wonder now if I was mistaken on the hardness.

[@flintrichards945]

thanks for the lesson in hardness on Winchester parts find that very interesting . I would’ve thought the model 71s had a harder steel that would’ve been my guess but it’s interesting to find out these things thank you for doing these videos from time to time it’s good knowledge.

[@jaybailleaux630]

The toggle link, Henry design is way underrated for strength. The reproduction 1873s made today could easily handle 44 magnum pressures . May not be as strong as a Browning 92 or Savage 99. Good chance an over pressure would burst a barrel before an action would fail. Barrel would act like a fuse link. Better to lose a hand than your head. Cartridge brass performs like a gasket to hold pressure in a chamber. That would fail before barrel or action.

[@thecinnabar8442]

Thanks for watching and commenting, but I'm assuming you didn't watch the part where I talked about this very thing when discussing PO Ackley's experiments that showed the barrel taking the brunt of the pressure and recoil instead of the receiver and bolt face. I didn't mention toggle link weakness in this episode but have discussed it in other episodes. Check out "How to Blow Up an Old Winchester" where I describe the enormous charge of powder and lead that were required to destruct an original 1876 with only one toggle link installed. The toggle link is not a weak design in terms of catastrophic failure, but the originals were prone to wear and the resulting excess headspace.

[@jaybailleaux630]

@@thecinnabar8442 I just discovered you . I will look at all your videos. You talk about the things am interested in. Love lever actions and metallurgy. Spent time a money at night school for 5 year learning about it . Machine tools and welding simply because of the love of firearms. If I had a choice and won a lottery, I would remaufactor the old firearms designs with emphasis on accuracy, modern cartridges, and even greater reliability for heirloom quality to hand down for many generations . Improving on the likes of Oliver Winchester and John Browing would be a challenging task indeed. It can be done.

[@thecinnabar8442]

Welcome aboard, Jay! Glad you found us. Sounds like we share a lot of the same interests in firearms. We'll soon be taking over operation of Wyoming Armory out in Cody and plan to produce more content on restoring vintage firearms. Keep an eye out for those episodes when we get settled in.

[@waynepegram3262]

Great content as usual!

[@danielbrand9706]

Why didn't you test the post 64 "cast" receivers? I recall reading that those receivers actually resulted in maintaining headspace better over time after they had been subjected to extensive testing. I have long been interested in the quality of those post 64 receivers. Its too bad that New Haven quit making fine guns My Win-cam angle eject beats the quality of any Pre-64 that I have encountered but Winchester had by then returned to the forged receivers which could be blued. The cast receivers could only be "blackened" eventually wearing off resulting in rusty surfaces.

[@larryduttry9400]

The receivers were sintered (powdered metallurgy) from what I have found, and not actually cast. If I remember correctly.. it’s been a few years since I fell down that rabbit hole 😂

[@Gunner-73]

During my quest for older Winchester lever action rifles, I found the older rifle had lines of metal missing. What causes those lines ? Great video, thank you for sharing.

[@Gamer_1745]

I would be interested in you testing revolver cylinders hardness, different manufactures & models from the 19th century. Thanks for the video.

[@titanbluestreak8709]

Another good video Mark. Interesting stuff.

[@patrickcolahan7499]

Very interesting, definitely some variation from what I thought you would find. I am on the look out for a hardness tester for my shop. Don't have a lot of need for it, but would be great to have. Don't care much for the file method, a big reason is the impact to the surface. Thanks for sharing.

[@Sagittariustoo]

This was an interesting and fun video to watch. This makes me wonder how good the quality of steel used in my recently purchased Made in Japan Miroku Winchester 1886 Deluxe reproduction is. ...and the quality of steel used in the Italian reproduction models of the model 1886 also.

[@ranchodeluxe1]

Top shelf quality in the Miroku, for sure. Model 52 Sporters are $6k or more. I've been trying to buy a Miroku Repop. They are selling over $2500.

[@dusty7264]

Great video, I have a really old model 92 with what they call a crescent butt, and a model 94 with a straight butt but a steel plate on it. When did they change the shape?

[@loquat44-40]

fascinating. I wonder if more modern '94s are any hard than the older ones. there was always something about not being able to reblue a '94 receiver or something related to its chemistry being different. A friend of mine claims that the softer surfaces of 93-95 mausers would withstand pressures fine if the headspace was correct.

[@Berniessen]

What about the material of like shotgun barrels are they made from diffent steel then rifle barrels of the same age and what about damascus barrels are they softer or harder? And what i really wonder how hard are modern day made barrel liners in like 44-40 or 45-70.

[@brianwoodyard9038]

How can I find out the approximate cost to restore my 1873 with an approximate date of 1881, It was re-blued and has a dark grey finish. The rifle is 24" barrel and a set trigger.

[@wilberfifer5563]

Thanks Mark!

[@ironduke2660]

Imagine showing a Glock to the Winchester Gunsmiths in the 1880's, More than a few rifles I've owned, even Winchesters had aluminum alloy frames. the Winchester Ranger comes to mind. I'm sure they understood what would work and what wouldn't. Nice vid!

[@Bhartrampf]

Very interesting, I wonder what the steel actually was. I know welding a tang on one is a no-go, I was told it was a carbium type, as better then wrot iron, but not pure steel also. What are your thoughts on that? Savage and stevens used the same stuff, could only braze it.

[@gregblaylock5560]

what about sintered steel 94 recievers.

[@dgoodman1484]

Someone needs an x-Ray fluorescence gun for Christmas! 😁👍🏼

[@markcarew6724]

Arcane and fascinating!

[@davidbones8947]

Mark how did they determine hardness in the 1800s

[@thecinnabar8442]

In a similar, but more crude fashion. They would use a penetrator and then measure across the impression to see how far it penetrated the metal.

[@lengazz]

wow, very interesting...

[@mikenicoletti2297]

When you say 76, is that “B” scale ?

[@charlescox6608]

What about the ones that say nickel vanadium ????

[@jacklucking691]

Great video Mark 😂

[@charlescox6608]

I have an old winchester,the raise nickel steel on the barrel !!!

[@upyours3457]

Done correctly, the 450 Alaskan is made with a 71 frame. The 86 frame wont hold up to the pressure.

[@thecinnabar8442]

That was kind of the point in mentioning it was an 1886 with failed locking blocks. However, we actually demonstrated that the model 71 receiver is made of the same mild steel material as the 1886. In fact, an early case hardened 1886 receiver will be stronger than a 71 receiver. I suspect the 71 has stronger steels in the bolt and locking blocks and that would make it more able to stand the extra bolt thrust of the 450 Alaskan. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll test a 71 bolt and locking blocks when I get the chance and compare them to an 1886.