Another example where "new and improved" really isn't?

[stubbicatt]

I was at the LGS the other day, and there were many Browning and/or Winchester 1885's on the rack, and a Pedersoli as well. The Miroku Brownings didn't have any tangs, and the Winchester had a sliding safety lever on the tang. Maybe it was other way around... (?)

There was a Low Wall chambered in a 308 family caliber, 260 Rem I think it was -- I opined that that action is not strong enough for that cartridge, and was scoffed at. I believe that is a failure waiting to happen.

Why do they need a safety on the tang? The Pedersoli had a version of the SST, which was, IMO, like a polished turd. No tang at all? How did they do this, and why?

I came home and looked at my 1904 Winchester and fell in love all over again. Maybe not as nice finish, but solid as the day it was built. Tang sight was just fine. Scope blocks and Fecker scope intact. DST were as functional and beautiful as ever.

In my view, these "advances" in manufacturing sure don't seem an improvement.

[marlinman93]

No tang is indeed a major improvement. It may not look like the original Winchester 1885, but a through bolt is indeed an improvement in how accurate a single shot rifle is. It's a modification many did to their 1885 for competition rifles, and one of the things that made Ballard rifles highly regarded for their accuracy.

[pietro]

There was a Low Wall chambered in a 308 family caliber, 260 Rem I think it was -- I opined that that action is not strong enough for that cartridge, and was scoffed at. I believe that is a failure waiting to happen.

With all respect, I believe you are in error - The Miroku Brownings are stronger than original Winchester High & Low Wall's because they are made of stronger modern steels, if nothing else, and have passed stringent proof tests before they left Japan.



Why do they need a safety on the tang ? - To satisfy their own corporate liability lawyers (legal department).



No tang at all? How did they do this, and why ?

Two reasons:

* It's less expensive than forging/machining tangs (some the newer versions/models have tangs).

and

* The buttstock's through-bolt attachment is thought by many to be stronger than a tang attachment.

( just think about how many of each type have been broken/cracked @ the pistol-grip/tang )

In some ways, the new ways are much better than the older ways; sometimes vice-versa (IOW, some days, you get the bear )


.

[Gunlaker]

The newer Winchesters are definitely accurate rifles, but I do like the originals much more. If the originals had a stock through-bolt like on the Meacham and Winchester/Browning reproductions then I think they'd be about perfect.

Chris.

[Doc Highwall]

I have one of the 1885 Browning Low walls in 260 Remington and they only 200 of them as a non-catalog item.

[AbitNutz]

I have a Winchester 1885 (Miroku) in 375 H&H. It's a fine, accurate rifle that teaches you to breath. After you shoot it, you it you're short of breath.

[oldred]

Basically except for a somewhat similar, maybe even vague, external appearance and the floating hammer which is the same in principle only these are two very different rifles, about the only thing the same on them is the model number! Nothing inside the action is the same and the newer rifles contain many more parts that operate in a different manner than the originals, for example an ejector with several associated parts instead of the simple one piece extractor on the original -an improvement? Maybe, it depends on preference I suppose. Take the tang safety, improvement? Ask several people, get several different opinions. The through bolt stock attach design is an improvement by almost any measure but, at least for me anyway, most of the so called improvements are little more than solutions to problems the original rifle didn't have in the first place! But again these are simply two very different designs, it's not like they took the old rifle and made a few changes to it but rather a new rifle was designed around the floating hammer principle and they chose to make it look somewhat similar externally but retained almost nothing else. Just my opinion but comparing these two rifles accomplishes little since they are so different and share little more than the name, both are fine rifles and each has it's own strong and weak points but which is best would depend entirely on what the owner wants. It boils down to whether or not a person wants the strong and dependable very simple and nostalgic design of the original or the strong and dependable but much more complicated and thoroughly modern newer models.