Shooting the Burgess Rifle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2011
- In this video I'll shoot a replica of Colt's Burgess lever action rifle. This replica is made in Italy by Uberti and it is imported into the USA by Taylor's & Co. of Winchester, Virginia.
- Спорт
They are pretty well matched. The '92 has a marginally stronger action, though the Burgess is plenty strong. The loading gate on the '92 is a much better design. But really, they are very comparable.
That's the story, but my research indicates that it probably did not go down that way. I have an article coming out in September about this issue. My research indicated that Colt dropped the Burgess because of low sales. Colt continued to make Burgesses in small quantities for three years after the supposed secret agreement with Winchester. Colt only sold about 3,500 Burgesses in four years. Winchester sold 35,000 1873s in the year the Burgess came out.
I am curious as to the barrel length on these rifle versions. I do not see it listed on Uberti's site or Taylors
There is a company here in Canada that have Taylor's and company ones available right now(December 2022). They are 44-40 20" carbines and 25.25" rifles.
@@janzen77 While I prefer one in 45 Colt, this may be the best I can get now.
i love it its my dream gun
It is. I belong to two clubs. The one in this video has better ranges for gun and load testing. I rarely make videos there. The other club has great action bays, and that is where I usually film...but not always...
What I am hearing from your comments is that John Browning was really the genius behind early american firearms, and both Winchester and Colt knew it. Example : Colt's 1911 and Winchester's level action rifles.
I love it's distinctive look which is nevertheless a little reminiscent of the M92 design. You seem to be getting a little hung up on that action too. Not as smooth as the '73? Noticed a little trouble closing the bolt toward the end of the stroke. Was that a Colt-Burgess anomaly as well? Is it link and toggle like Winchesters? If you've done an feature article on it in "Guns of the Old West" I'd love to know which issue. I can back order(?).
I shoot a lot of single shot rifles with black powder but hesitate to do so with my lever actions in fear of getting the bp in the action causing corrosion. Guess I just don’t want to have to tear them down for cleaning that nasty stuff!
That looks like a different range than you usually use, or maybe another part.
Great video! Is the lock up still a toggle ling style like the various Winchesters of the day?
I am looking for disassembly/ assembly instructions for the Burgess. Any idea where to find such?
I'm still looking, too!
JM Browning, and JM Marlin Both. And Yes, Winchester May well have fallen apart after the 1980's if it had not been for Browning. Without his designs, they would never have been able to chamber the 45-70 in a lever action, Something Marlin was able to do 5 years earlier. Without Browning, The only name we may well have thought of today would have been Marlin.
yup
Does this model have the ability to fire a smokeless cartridges ?
About $1,500
How much would one of these bad boys cost?
Beautiful rifle. I would like one. How would you compare the Burgess to the Win 92? Thanks.
I purchased one in 44-40 from DGW made by Uberti. It came with a blow up diagram but no instructions for dismantling it for cleaning. Does it take down similar to a 336 Marlin by removing the lever bolt first then the lever and bolt? I thought it might be more like the Whitney since Burgess designed both. Couldn't find any videos on UA-cam. MWM
I'm in the exact same boat with you, I'll msg here with what I learn
Hey Mike...how do the ballistics of the 45 Colt and the 44-40 compare out of a rifle length barrel with black powder??? This information is nowhere on the web that I can find!!!
The .44-40 has higher velocity, and a better ballistic coefficient, given the same weight bullet, but they are very similar.
Mike: Thanks for the reply...I've got a Winchester 66 clone along with a couple of SAAs...in 45 Colt. But I am considering buying a 73 in 44-40 mainly because that's the original caliber. I like the 45 in the 66 because like the 44 Henry the 45 is a straight walled cartridge...kind of like a 44 Henry "magnum"...if you will!!! I've been looking for black powder comparison ballistics...but all I can find for 45 Colt is smokeless ballistics out of pistol length barrels...and I know they're a "helluvalot" hotter coming out of a rifle barrel. I usually roll my own bp cartridges with 200 rather than 250 gr bullets...so I'm guessing with all that extra powder they're actually moving faster than the 200 gr 44-40...of course with a much lower bc bullet. However...since neither is any good past about 150yds the higher bc of the 44-40 bullet isn't really that big of a deal. I've heard you talk about the 44-40's thinner neck brass lessening the bp blowback...so how does your straight walled 44 spl 66 compare to the 44-40 73 in this regard? Do you find there to be considerably more fowling in the breech of your 66 compared to the 73? Ahhh...decisions...decisions!!! Anyway...thanks again for the reply...and if I've missed an important aspect that might influence my decision...please let me know.
MASTER deBATER. With full power loads, and a good tight crimp, you will get very little fowling in the action of any of those calibers. Because .44-40 has virtually the same case capacity than the Colt, 200 grain bullets in each will have about the same velocity, but I have always found .44-40 to be more accurate at 100 yards, and the slight bottle neck makes feeding better.
Yeah...My Winchester brass holds about 43 grains of 3F...I just fill them up and plug them with the 200gr bullet...which compresses the bp a little less than 1/4 of an inch...that and a mag primer makes a pretty hot load!!! good point about the bottle neck aiding in feeding...I used to have some issues with the 45 cases...but it was just the brass lip hanging up on the chamber mouth...once I began crimping the case mouth flush...no more problems. Anyway...thanks again for all the info and the videos we all really appreciate your work!!!
That's nuts they make these rifles for .45 Colt which is not only historically inauthentic but is a vastly inferior cartridge to .44-40 for rifle use because of its tiny rim which was never intended for extraction purposes since the Colt SAA had that poke-out ejector. Is that something to do with the rules or preferences of cowboy action shooters? I just don't get it.
I don't know about action strength or details like the loading gate, but that sure looks like a neat and efficient design... in appearance and apparent function, practically the M1892 Winchester a decade ahead of its time. Whatever can be documented, I gotta believe it was Burgess's great misfortune to sell a rifle to a handgun company.
I'm with you brother! Why is everybody edging out such a great cartridge as the ol' .44-40 instead of revitalizing it?! Especially the cowboy shoot crowd?I've been shootin' mine since 1995 and it's recoil is not much more than my .22-it's right in there between the .44mag/.44 spl. and .357 in power in fast handling popular rifle and handgun designs. I love Colt 45 just as much but use it in the revolver which really showcases its power in the smaller handgun package. Sure hope they're listening to this.
The 44 WCF as a BLACK POWDER cartridge is in fact superior to the .45 Colt as it has a real rim for extraction in rifles, and the very thin and necked cases of the 44 WCF seal the chamber and action much more effectively from the crud that the Holy Black produces than the 45 Colt does. Having said all that, the MODERN 45 Colt has been given a real, small, but never the less real rim that is just large enough for an extractor to grab hold of. The ORIGINAL 45 Colt would not function in a rifle as it's rim was designed to hold the case only firmly enough to allow the primers to be firmly struck, leaving extraction chores to the ejector rod. Even the MODERN 45 Colt cartridge has only the bare minimum amount of rim required to allow a rifle extractor to extract and eject the case, such problems did not arise of corse in revolvers that punch out the empties ( i.e. the with an ejector rod. We should remember that the 44 WCF was conceived as a RIFLE Cartridge and as such has a very effective rim for an extractor to latch onto. As long as the propellent is BLACK POWDER, the 44 WCF is significantly better as a rifle AND revolver cartridge due to the facts that it seals the chambers better, and has a significantly superior rim for rifle extractors to grab hold of. When loaded with smokeless powder, the only concern about the 45 Colt is that the extractor MUST be properly installed and adjusted in rifles and should be checked for wear to insure proper extraction and ejection. BOTH cartridges and the weapons they're chambered in whether rifles or revolvers are a hoot to shoot, I'm glad that both are still being loaded. Personally my revolvers are 45 Colt and my rifles are 44 WCF. We should not let ourselves get involved in controversy, and just shoot and enjoy these cartridges and the weapons chambered in them.
.45 Colt brass is slightly easier to reload (because it's straight-walled), and is somewhat harder to inadvertently damage while out at the range (again, because it's straight-walled, and also because it's somewhat thicker). There's also a positive feedback loop where .45 Colt ammo is easier to find in stores, which makes it more appealing to shooters, who therefore buy more guns chambered in it . . . which results in the ammo being easier to find in stores, because there's more demand.
The 45 Colt is not ideal for any firearm using an extraction/ejection system due to it's skinny little rim. Ammo manufacturers now make the rims slightly larger, but the case is still marginal for extraction and ejection unless it is used in a firearm like the Colt 1873 that uses an ejector rod. Moreover, it's straight case walls and more substantial case wall construction (thicker walls) allow blowback of powder gases which with smokeless powder is insignificant, but in a Blackpowder loading makes cleaning of the action especially onerous. The 44 WCF and the 38 WCF (44/40 and 38/40) with their thin walls and bottleneck shape do an extraordinarily excellent job of sealing the chamber on firing and limiting, almost eliminating powdergass fouling to blow back into the action. These features for rifles and also for most revolvers make the 44WCF and the 38 WCF greatly superior to the 45 C0lt for loading with the Holy Black. Using the thin Winchester Brass helps a great deal in all cases due to it's lights construction/thinner walls. Using the Holy Black makes selection of cartridges for Rifles, and to a lesser extent revolvers a different world . Proper maintainennce of extractor hooks in rifles and break action revolvers USUALLY eliminates ejection/extraction problems with modern 45 Colt firearms. It must be remembered that the rim of the 45 Colt is designed to headspace and stabilize the round for a good primer strike and was meant to be used in revolvers with ejection rods. That rim was meant to hold the case for a good firing pin strike, and to provide headspace control, not to provide extraction and ejection. If the Colt is loaded with smokeless powder, or in thin Winchester Brass a lot of these problems are eliminated or are negligible. Only with Black Powder in rifles with extractor/ejectors does the small rim cause difficulties that require careful maintenance and inspection, the same is true in Schofield and other break action revolvers. The round was meant to be a working companion for the 1873 Colt Revolver, there was good and sufficient reason for not chambering the round in other firearms that did not use an ejector rod to punch out the empties. With the new larger rims on the 45 Colt, the problem is greatly reduced, and given proper inspection and firearm maintenance almost eliminated. As for me, I use the 45 Colt but only in SAA Army type revolvers and use Winchester Brass and FFg Black powder, droptubed, waded, and compressed, 35 grains of it. With that loading and with soft alloy bullets, it is an excellent load. It is very powerful and gives good terminal ballistics(bulllet performance) due to almost 900 feet per second velocity and the soft lead bullets substantial expansion at recover range, I use a 40-1 lead /tin allow that is very soft. The 45 Colt is an excellent Single Action Revolver cartridge, and with modern made cases a good cartridge for break action revolvers and repeating rifles.
For repeating rifles and break action revolvers especially when using the Holy Black it is not as good as the 44/40 or the 45 Smith&Wesson.
That lever movement looks kinda clunky, unlike a henry style action
Modern time henry ???
So the story of Oliver Winchester visiting Sam Colt in his office with a winchester prototype revolver and askin Sam what he thought about it and how he should go about making improvements to go into full production so that he could sell both caliber matching pistols and rifles is a huge detail thought had no bearing on your little video? The splitting of the forearm you talked about was something that happened after the rifles got to be over 50 years old from rough handling down in mexico where the wood would dry out quickly in the hot temps. The reason only 6400 apx were made by colt was because Colt and Winchester came to an agreement that in essence said that Winchester wouldn't start making revolvers if colt quit making lever guns. After the last levers were produced by colt had been packaged up. They were sold to the mexicans and europeans so as to not interfere with US winchester lever gun sales. This occured in 1884 production of the Burgess was from 1883 -1885. Sam Colt the clever man he was never said a word to Oliver about the Lightning Magazine pump action rifles being developed in 1884 and sold for 20 years while in production. Those actions also had an open top like the Burgess. Later during production a dust cover was added because it took them a minute to come up with a way to do it that didn't infringe on the winchester patent. FYI.
That Winchester/Colt deal story is a myth. Only one person, 30 years after the fact, has alleged that it took place. Dale A. Olson in his excellent book, "The Burgess Long Range Repeating Model 1878" does a great job of of disproving the details of that myth. Also, just for the record, Sam Colt had been dead for 20 years at the time that meeting supposedly occurred. It is a great story though, which is why it persists. A few years ago, I got to examine one of the Mason Williams Winchester pistol prototypes. It is a nice gun.
duelist1954 Mike: How dare you dispel a perfectly good myth. :-)
duelist1954 Hi Mike I have a question do you think that one of these rifles could have gotten into Argentina in the 1800's along with a arsenal of other weapons? The reason why I am asking you this is because I'm from Argentina and supposedly my 13th generation grandfather had a lot of old colt / remington conversation and colt lighings amongst other things I can't wait to hear back from you thank you Matthew
It sounded like those .45-70 rounds, were striking the steel plates with authority!
Winchester was in fact VERY worried about the Burgess rifle which was a better and stronger built rifle then the Winchester. Ultimately, and at the coaxing of the federal government, Winchester executives showed up at Colt with revolver prototypes and an agreement was reached whereby Winchester would stop importing revolvers from Great Britain (and elsewhere) as well as stop further research and development in revolvers and in exchange Colt would cease production of the superior Burgess rifle and stick to revolvers (they still made rifles, but pump action) . Winchester had similar worries about the Whitney-Kennedy (also a design by Burgess) so much so that they bought the Whittneyville Armory and liquidated there assets and put an end to the 6 year run of the Whitney-Kennedy. The Burgess was superior to the Winchester of the time hands down, and Winchester was very worried.
You misspelled the link to distributor. It's Taylor's & Company (www.taylorsfirearms.com), not "Tailor's".
like
Not Colt's best effort? I wholeheartedly disagree and so would countless others. This model was certainly enough to rattle Winchester. Lighter and is confirmed to have had a stronger receiver than the 1873. Many historians say the opposite in that the Burgess was superior to the 1873 and I would have to agree there. Plus what caliber are you using there? 45 Colt? That's not even an accurate reproduction as the Burgess was never offered in that caliber to begin with. Winchester repeaters are always a good choice but everybody has one already. Some of the best repeating rifles were made by lesser known manufacturers. Winchester would aquire these competing brands with the intent of eliminating any competition by ceasing production once aquired. I will stick with the Burgess. I prefer the octagon long rifle over the carbine in the historically accurate 44-40. Very misleading review and lacks historical accuracy. Going around and making everything in 45 Colt is just a novelty at best. The 45 Colt is not typically a desired round for a rifle in the first place or anything with extraction/ejection mechanicals for that matter.