Japanese vs Italian Winchesters

1899

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Location
West
Hi All,

For those of you who have owned both Miroku and Italian - specifically Pedersoli or Uberti - Winchesters: What are your thought on how they compare? I'm thinking about fit and finish, feeding reliability, trigger weight and feel and so forth.

It seems to me that the Italians may be making more accurate copies with the stock finish and lack of tang safety - save for the Miroku built 1873s. Also, Taylor's & Co are selling a variety of brands under their own label - do they modify those rifles in any way, or are they just relabled?

Thanks for taking the time to answer!
 
I have 1873's in uberti and winchester. My uberti 1873 in 32 20 looks nice and shoots straight. It is smooth but has heavier springs than the Winchester and takes more effort to cycle but still very nice. My winchester in 357 is not accurate with full power or factory loads I shoot subsonic at 50 metres with it now, it's OK for that. It has a weird safety feature in the bolt that is easy enough to delete. Both had horrible triggers I got rusty wood to take down to a little less than 3 pounds they are great. The uberti has a nice square flat front sight I changed the tiny winchester bead to a fibre optic. I wouldn't say the uberti is better made but it's nice, shoots well and seems closer to the original. There are a lot of aftermarket parts for the uberti, not so much winchester
 
I also own both. Model 1873's. I have no real preference between the two. Both are very well built, function reliably and are accurate. Still, I do tend to prefer the Uberti-made rifles over Winchester. But.....for very specific reasons.

As most active cowboy action competitors already know, to be competitive in the sport it is often necessary to modify these firearms to function fast and reliably, under tough competitive conditions. So that means swapping out various springs and other parts.

This is where Uberti rifles really shine. There are any number of top quality, aftermarket parts available, to achieve this goal. For example: reduced power springs, lighter cartridge carrier blocks, short stroke kits, and so on. So, it can be relatively easy to modify the stock rifles for top performance. It comes as no surprise then, that the vast majority of top cowboy action competitors run the Uberti brand, as their main match rifles.

Winchester-Miroku rifles on the other hand....since they are a relatively new kid on the block, lack that aftermarket support. So fall a bit behind, in that regard. If cowboy action shooting may be in your future, that might be something to consider, before making a purchase. Still, that's no reason to turn your nose up at one.
It bears mentioning that, this situation is slowly improving. As more aftermarket parts intended for competitive use are starting to appear. Also, if a person is even moderately mechanically inclined, the Miroku-made rifles can be modified to run nearly as fast as their Uberti counterparts, with a few simple mods.

Still......the Winchester-Miroku rifles, even in stock form, can perform very well in competition. As they are very smooth operating, have good triggers, and already come from the factory lightly short stroked. If you look up former World Champion: ' Deuce Stevens', you tube channel, among his various videos you will find a segment where he takes a stock Winchester 1873 from box to range, and demonstrates how capable one of these rifles can be, in actual competition. From my own experience, I can state that these rifles can and do hold their own in most competitive situations.

You cannot go wrong purchasing either brand. As mentioned though, a person's end purpose might influence choice.

Hope this helps

Al
ps: Maybe not part of this particular post, but, I also own a Pedersoli 1886 rifle, chambered in .45-70. Excellent build quality, inside and out. Have also had the opportunity to shoot a Winchester-Miroku 1894 rifle. This one, chambered in .38-55. Top quality, throughout.
 
Last edited:
Hi All,

For those of you who have owned both Miroku and Italian - specifically Pedersoli or Uberti - Winchesters: What are your thought on how they compare? I'm thinking about fit and finish, feeding reliability, trigger weight and feel and so forth.

It seems to me that the Italians may be making more accurate copies with the stock finish and lack of tang safety - save for the Miroku built 1873s. Also, Taylor's & Co are selling a variety of brands under their own label - do they modify those rifles in any way, or are they just relabled?

Thanks for taking the time to answer!
I have both. The Miroku is better made, but not as nice (case hardened receiver, better wood, etc in the Italians). The Miroku Winchesters have poorly thought out safety features too, like tang safeties and rebounding hammers, no 'real' half-####, etc.

Consider a Browning - it's also make by Miroku, but doesn't have the lawyer-inspired features.
 
Thanks Al, that makes sense. I am not planning on competitive shooting so that is not a factor. One thing that I think I need is either a receiver or tang sight. The tang safety makes that mor challenging on the Miroku models. The Miroku M94s are also no longer drilled and tapped for receiver sights.

And yes, I think Browning had a good thing going with their 1886.
 
1899:
If a Pedersoli 1886 is to your liking, these rifles come drilled and tapped for receiver sights. Mine wears a Lyman 66. I agree, the Browning 1886's were superb rifles. Have not yet had the chance to shoot one of the Winchester-Miroku 1886's. But, I don't doubt their quality will compare favourably with Browning.

As far as tang sights go, the Winchester-Miroku 1873 is already drilled & tapped for a tang sight. Uberti 1873's are not, but no problem doing so.
The Winchester-Miroku '94's are excellent rifles. If I owned one, I would likely have it drilled/tapped for a receiver sight. Not a hard job, for a competent gunsmith. Though the stock sights aren't bad, even for my old eyes.

Stock sights on the Winchester 1873 are also good. Though that fine front sight bead is better suited for deliberate shooting, than fast action. I replaced mine, as a result. Also filed the stock semi-buckhorn rear sight down to a flat top, too. For faster sight acquisition. Have not checked lately but, I believe tang sights are available for both the Winchester-Miroku 1892 and 1894 rifles, with bases that accommodate the tang safety.
Or, the tang safety can be removed. I understand this is a simple modification that doesn't affect the rifle's function, at all.

The bolt extension safety mechanism on the Winchester-Miroku 1873 is easily removed and replaced with an aftermarket solid bolt extension. Whole job took maybe half an hour. Including completely stripping the internals out of the rifle, and re-assembly.

The stock safety mechanism is pretty reliable, though. I put over 20,000 rounds through my rifle, before swapping out the safety. Mostly to check out the safety's reliability. Which was supposed to be problematic, according to some sources. I encountered no problems.
Swap made as part of the rifle's mods, for competition. Otherwise, I would have left it alone.

Al
 
Last edited:
I understand Marbles makes a tang sight for 1892 with tang safety, but the rifle only has one hole and the sight needs two. It appears, despite Winchester advertising the "top tang is drilled and tapped for optional peep sight", another hole must be drilled and tapped.

The Winchester 1886 looks like it is also drilled and tapped for receiver sights, but the M94 is not. I'll look into that Pedersoli a bit closer. Thanks for the good info!
 
I understand Marbles makes a tang sight for 1892 with tang safety, but the rifle only has one hole and the sight needs two. It appears, despite Winchester advertising the "top tang is drilled and tapped for optional peep sight", another hole must be drilled and tapped.

The Winchester 1886 looks like it is also drilled and tapped for receiver sights, but the M94 is not. I'll look into that Pedersoli a bit closer. Thanks for the good info!
This is not true at all. I have a 92 bought a couple of years and a 94 bought a couple of months ago. Both have the second hole drilled and tapped for tang sights. Perhaps you didn't look close enough as they are small and just ahead of that stupid safety.
 
This is not true at all. I have a 92 bought a couple of years and a 94 bought a couple of months ago. Both have the second hole drilled and tapped for tang sights. Perhaps you didn't look close enough as they are small and just ahead of that stupid safety.
There is nothing ahead of my safety. Is it the tiny screw right in front of the rear tang screw?
1738533390472.png
 
I have a Miroku-made Winchester-marked 1886 that is not drilled/tapped with that small extra mounting screw, and it has a Marbles tang sight installed. The sight is obviously designed to work on a tang-safety gun like mine, and has a small indentation or tunnel machined into its underside to allow the safety to function. The sight does indeed have a second smaller hole in front of the "main" hole but on my gun that isn't being used.

In a perfect world, there would be no idiotic tang safety on the gun. In our imperfect world I should take the gun to a qualified smith and have a perfect hole added to make for a perfect installation...I've drilled and tapped many of my guns but this one is too nice for me to mess up myself...but in actuality, I have had this gun for years set up this way, and have fired many hundreds of .45-70 rounds through ranging from mild plinking stuff to African-Big-5-class ammo. The sight is tightly held in place by the one large tang screw, and of course the bottom of the sight is curved to match the contour of the tang which also locks it in place. The sight has never budged, and I stopped checking the tightness of that screw long ago.

Incidentally, this sight is obviously a work-around by Miroku for guns like mine and while I find it an excellent solution to a liability-induced problem, it is quite a PITA if you actually expect to use the tang safety. Activating the safety requires you to push the safety slide backwards from in front of the sight; not difficult, but far more awkward than a tang safety should be. If you were indeed foolish enough to engage the safety, disengaging it is much worse; there is very little space between the rear of the sliding button and the front of the tang sight when the safety is On. Pushing it forward to disengage the safety can never be done in the smooth fluid way that one would wish; you need to jam your fingertip or fingernail into that little crevice and shove forward in a very awkward manner, impossible to accomplish without releasing your shooting grip completely.

If you've ever seen one of long-range shooting gurus on WildTV or elsewhere who release their shooting grip, grab the safety lever on their bolt-action rifles with thumb and forefinger and manhandle it as though it's a stickshift on an old Honda Civic...well, that maneuver is smooth and graceful compared to playing with the 1886 tang-safety/tang-sight combination.

My safety has been Off ever since I bought the gun, 15+ years ago. I haven't touched it in almost that long; I just played with it a couple seconds ago before posting this, to remind myself how dumb an idea it is. :)
 
I have a "Japchester" 86 (45-90) with tang safety. When I wanted to mount a tang sight I removed all the safety gizmo and built a metal insert for the slot that was D&T for the front screw.
 
Back
Top Bottom