The web's most comprehensive user-interactive handloading database! Find the loading data created by handloaders, for handloaders, post your pet loads, or access and develop your own online loading database with our LoadNotes personal handloading database software. This feature, unique in its concept and intuitive in it's data presentation is fast to access, superbly organized and comprehensive in scope.Our online forums for questions and answers on many shooting and outdoor related topics. A dynamic, active, and well-informed resource for your enjoyment and interaction. Our most used resource on this website! Come share the experience with us!
» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Leverguns > Big-Bore Lever Guns
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Like Tree2Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-26-2012, 12:38 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: bainbridge, ga
Posts: 1,918
Uberti .44 Magnum 1873 Rifle


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Anyone have one of these? Appreciate any info.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:41 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,301
Sorry, but I'm not the slightest bit interested in a relatively heavy rifle with an antiquated toggle-link lockup/breeching, chambered for a modern magnum cartridge & it's attendant pressures, mush higher than the action was designed to take.



.
__________________
Feed a starving man a fish & he will eat for a day - Teach the man how to fish & he will never starve again.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-27-2012, 07:42 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 344
I saw, and handled, a Uberti 1873 Carbine in a .44 Mag at the last NRA convention. I also talked to one of their customer service reps that seemed to be well versed as to what their gunsmith's capabilities are. He said the .44 is only made in the Carbine version and claimed the bolt "thrust" of the .44, being a straight case round, is well within the capability of the design. He indicated that they would not market a rifle that was dangerous to shoot within SAAMI specs and the .44 Mag had had no problems to date! (The caliber offering was new at that time but I did find at least one U-tube video of a person firing a .44 with no "ill" effects!) I own a Uberti 1873 in .45 Colt and am amazed at the ability of that "little bitty" carriage bolt to contain even the low pressure of a .45 "Cowboy" load. I don't think I'd want to own one in a .44 Mag, but if I did I would limit mine to .44 Special pressures, which would give .44 Mag velocities (anyway) because of the longer 19" BBL. Just my .02. BTW, my 1873 20" Octagon "Short Rifle" weighs 7.5 pounds (unloaded).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-29-2012, 01:10 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 2,965
Although they may be safe, I simply cannot see a 73 action holding up long under full-house .44 mag pressures. If I were shooting one a lot, I think I'd stick to lower pressures.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-29-2012, 02:26 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 8,390
There's a very good reason Winchester made the Model 1892. I believe if I want a 44 Magnum, I'll choose an action designed to handle it.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-30-2012, 04:29 PM
sandog's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: S. W. Montana
Posts: 249
I guess Uberti wouldn't market the 1873 in 44.Mag if there was any doubt about safety, and face lawsuits, but I would not want one in .44 Magnum. It might be made of modern steel, but it is still a weak, 139 year old design. There have been instances where a .44/40 or .45 colt was overloaded and the skinny bolt will head straight for your eye. Better to buy a Win 1892 clone or a Marlin 1894.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-31-2012, 08:35 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: foothills of the Simcoe Mtns. Goldendale, Wa.
Posts: 543
I have a couple 92's, but not one in 44mag. I think the 73' in 44mag would go nicely with my old 3 screw SBH....I don't believe Uberti would offer this option to the public at large, if there was going to be a problem with it. I'm always reading how the reloading books have been "lawyered" down to protect (whomever) but evidently gun makers aren't burdened by law suits so I guess they don't have to worry about putting a gun on the market that "may" send the bolt back in (a) face upon firing. I'd be willing to bet there was at least a little testing done before this rifle chambering became available... thats my uneducated guess anyway..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-31-2012, 09:24 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 2,965
Said it before, I'll say it again -- I don't believe for a minute the gun as they are making it is unsafe; but I do believe the durability of a toggle-link action of that size under such pressures, no matter how well-built it may be, is questionable. Sort of like boring out a 1930s S&W K-frame .38 to .357, it's not likely to blow up -- but shoot it enough and you'll have a revolver that soon quits working as it should.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:56 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
There's a very good reason Winchester made the Model 1892. I believe if I want a 44 Magnum, I'll choose an action designed to handle it.
Really ? Might want to rethink that statement.
TMair likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-02-2013, 07:27 PM
WinMike's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Vancouver, USA
Posts: 127
I bought a Uberti '73 in .357 Mag about 9 months ago, and have fired everything from thumper 180 gr. to mild 125 gr., to date a little over 2000 rounds.

Now I admit that 9 months and 2000 rounds is hardly a lifetime of use and abuse, but so far my '73 shows no signs of wear nor any mechanical concerns. I'm convinced that Uberti used a little better steel than was available 140 years ago.

The problem with asking for advice on the internet is that one gets a lot of opinions from those who've never handled, fired, loaded and fired again. Ironhead, skip the negative posts unless it provides genuine....and verifiable.....information.

In the meantime, guess I'll continue to blaze away!
__________________
If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:31 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: bainbridge, ga
Posts: 1,918
Guys, thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-03-2013, 03:49 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 8,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
There's a very good reason Winchester made the Model 1892. I believe if I want a 44 Magnum, I'll choose an action designed to handle it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad457 View Post
Really ? Might want to rethink that statement.
Oh really? And why is that?

Winchester came out with the Model 1892 to allow more powerful cartridges, like the 44 WCF (44/40, loaded to rifle velocity). Many 1892 rifles, originally chambered in 44/40, were later rebarreled to shoot 44 Magnum cartridges.

The '92 in my gun safe was rebarreled as well, but remained a 44/40. I just load it up to very near 44 Magnum velocity, because the cartridge and the rifle are designed for it. If that was true of the Model 1873, maybe you can explain why they came out with the much stronger '92?

Better yet, tell the OP why pretty much every book out there on Winchester lever action rifles explains, in no uncertain terms, that the Model '73, for all its virtues, is simply not a very strong action and should not be hot-rodded. I'm sure Uberti has their bases covered with improved steels and maybe even a design tweak or two, but the fundamental truth is as I've explained it above.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.

Last edited by broom_jm; 01-03-2013 at 03:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-03-2013, 04:25 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
Oh really? And why is that?

Winchester came out with the Model 1892 to allow more powerful cartridges, like the 44 WCF (44/40, loaded to rifle velocity). Many 1892 rifles, originally chambered in 44/40, were later rebarreled to shoot 44 Magnum cartridges.

The '92 in my gun safe was rebarreled as well, but remained a 44/40. I just load it up to very near 44 Magnum velocity, because the cartridge and the rifle are designed for it. If that was true of the Model 1873, maybe you can explain why they came out with the much stronger '92?

Better yet, tell the OP why pretty much every book out there on Winchester lever action rifles explains, in no uncertain terms, that the Model '73, for all its virtues, is simply not a very strong action and should not be hot-rodded. I'm sure Uberti has their bases covered with improved steels and maybe even a design tweak or two, but the fundamental truth is as I've explained it above.
The fact is the 44 magnum came out in the 1950's, so tell us exactly how the 92 action was designed for it ? Did John Browning posess a time machine ? Sure, it can handle the 44 Magnum, but it hardly was designed for it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-03-2013, 05:17 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,480
Guys, settle.

I doubt the manufacturer (who is obligated to support specs given by CIP and SAAMI) would produce a rifle that could not handle factory cartridges.

The world of metallurgy / machining has changed a LOT in the elapsed time. If you don't believe that, go handle some of the flyweight .357 snubbies.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-03-2013, 05:36 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Guys, settle.

I doubt the manufacturer (who is obligated to support specs given by CIP and SAAMI) would produce a rifle that could not handle factory cartridges.

The world of metallurgy / machining has changed a LOT in the elapsed time. If you don't believe that, go handle some of the flyweight .357 snubbies.
All true. However, although you might construct a Wright Flyer out of modern materials and to the tightest specs, and somehow shoehorn a pair of 800 hp radial engines in to it, and even get it to fly -- you can't expect it to perform as well, or be as durable, as a DC3.

Similarly, although flyweight .357s are safe and remarkably durable, no reasonable person would expect a flyweight J-frame to stand up longterm to as much full-house shooting as an N-frame, and neither should he expect a 73 to hold up under magnum pressures as long as a 92.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-03-2013, 10:59 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 8,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad457 View Post
The fact is the 44 magnum came out in the 1950's, so tell us exactly how the 92 action was designed for it ? Did John Browning posess a time machine ? Sure, it can handle the 44 Magnum, but it hardly was designed for it.
You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't say the Model 1892 was designed FOR the 44 Magnum, I said if I wanted a 44 Magnum, I'd buy a rifle designed to handle cartridges with that kind of performance. Sorry to spoil your little "gotchya" moment. Nice try, though.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-03-2013, 02:14 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't say the Model 1892 was designed FOR the 44 Magnum, I said if I wanted a 44 Magnum, I'd buy a rifle designed to handle cartridges with that kind of performance. Sorry to spoil your little "gotchya" moment. Nice try, though.
Go back and reread what you posted What you said here is not what you originally posted. Words mean things. If you don't want to be misinterpreted, then proof read what you post before posting it. This is especially important in a forum dealing with the subjects discussed here. You surely wouldn't want someone to hurt themselves from following inaccurate information you post here would you ?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-03-2013, 02:16 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Guys, settle.

I doubt the manufacturer (who is obligated to support specs given by CIP and SAAMI) would produce a rifle that could not handle factory cartridges.

The world of metallurgy / machining has changed a LOT in the elapsed time. If you don't believe that, go handle some of the flyweight .357 snubbies.
I shot one of those flyweight snubbies in 38 special last week, I'll pass on any further ones. That ****ed thing hurt worse than my Ruger SBH with full house 350 gr loads and a 5.5" bbl.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-03-2013, 03:49 PM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,480
Guys, get over it. If all you're going to do is pick nits about each others responses, I'm going to close the thread.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:23 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,242
I'm over it. But I WILL add the fact that the smiley face I had added to my initial post here, should have been a clue that it was done "in jest". It was not meant to be demeaning in any sense of the word. Some people just need to take a breath before responding. If life can't be fun, then what' the use ? My appologies to the OP if he was offended by anything I said.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lyman Trade Rifle .50 caliber cayugad Muzzleloaders 4 11-12-2013 04:58 PM
Wildcat development using T/C's Dimension rifle broom_jm Wildcat Cartridges 7 10-06-2012 05:31 PM
Range Report: Taurus M44C .44 Magnum "Tracker" mattsbox99 Handguns 15 02-11-2011 05:54 PM
Winchester Model 1873 (original) .44 WCF cartridge length rscottm Leverguns and Their Cartridges (General) 10 01-06-2010 07:27 PM
Uberti .44 magnum pisgah Handguns 11 09-26-2008 06:41 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:13 AM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2