Lets get a some lever action #### going

[Matt74]

I beg to disagree: The 33 WCF was also available as an "Extra light Weight" rifle, albeit with a 24 inch barrel.

We are talking about the same gun here, but people have varying opinions on the matter. From what I have read on WACA, the 33 cal with a 24" barrel is not a Extra light Weight, the Extra Light Weight refers to a 45-70 with a 22" barrel. The 33s came standard with the rapid taper 24" barrels were never advertised as ELWs - like the 22" 45-70s - though many do call them that. IIRC John Madl refers to the 24" 33s as ELWs. Just symantics. I refer to the 22" 45-70s as ELWs, the 33s as LWs. They are all really light when compared to a traditional 86!

Matt

 

[okcorral1881]

You are referring to the Lightweight (LW) 1886, this in an Extra Lightweight (ELW). The ELW rifles had 22" barrels and were in 45-70, while the LW model had a 24" barrel and were in 33WCF.

Right....I was misguided by Madis' book where he calls both Extra Lightweight!
Thanks for clearing that up!

OK

 

[Matt74]

Right....I was misguided by Madis' book where he calls both Extra Lightweight!
Thanks for clearing that up!

OK

There is a lot of really good information in Madis' book, but a whole lot of things that have also later proved not to be correct. But, he did the best with what he had at the time I think. I don't read it too much any more for reference, but sure do enjoy the photos in it.

Matt

 

[okcorral1881]

I beg to disagree: The 33 WCF was also available as an "Extra light Weight" rifle, albeit with a 24 inch barrel.

Tech, even Winchester in their early catalogs would not call the .33 an
ELW!
OK

 

[tech551]

Tech, even Winchester in their early catalogs would not call the .33 an
ELW!
OK

The Winchester catalogs did not always reflect the Factory nomenclature. I still stand by my statement that the ELW was offered in 33 and 45-70. I don't consider myself an expert but I will call 3 expert witnesses to the stand. The first one has made a few mistakes and has been much denigrated since he is no longer here to defend himself. As far as I am concerned his book is still the main reference.

1. George Madis, The Winchester Book (My copy is the First Edition with a last copyright date of 1977. Your copy may have the photos on different pages). I will refer to statements included in the captions below photos.
a. Top of page 327: "Very few special features will be found on the 45-70 and the 33 extra lightweight rifles."
b. Top of page 329: "Standard barrels for 33 caliber extra lightweight rifles were 24 inches in length while this rifle has the rare 22 inch length."
c. Second last photo on page 334: "Extra lightweight rifles were of two basic standard barrel styles: the 45-70 with 22 inch round barrel and the 33 caliber with a 24 inch round barrel."
d. Top of page 349: "Extra lightweight model rifles were offered in calibers 33 W.C.F. and 45-70 only. Any other calibers were considered specials, and we will rarely see any other calibers in these models."

2. Arthur Pirkle, Winchester Lever Action Repeating Firearms, volume 2, The Models of 1886 and 1892.
a. Appendix C, page 190, second last paragraph: " Winchester produced the Model 1886 "lightweight" and "extra" lightweight variations in .33 and .45-70 calibers, only. Any other caliber rifle, albeit one configured identically in every respect, was considered by Winchester to be a "special order" rifle."
b. Appendix C, page 191, last paragraph: " How do you tell the difference between lightweight and extra lightweight variations of the M1886? Examine the buttplates. The lightweight variations always had shotgun-type steel buttplates installed while the extra lightweight variations had shotgun type-hard rubber buttplates."

3. John T. Madl, Identifying your Model 1886 Winchester.
a. Page 48: Under the heading EXTRA LIGHT WEIGHT: "33 Cal. had a 24" barrel standard. 45 Cal. had a 22" barrel standard."

I rest my case and will end my side of the discussion with these statements from three different "Experts" who were or are a lot more knowledgeable about the Winchester Model 1886 than any of us armchair experts!

 

[Matt74]

The Winchester catalogs did not always reflect the Factory nomenclature. I still stand by my statement that the ELW was offered in 33 and 45-70. I don't consider myself an expert but I will call 3 expert witnesses to the stand. The first one has made a few mistakes and has been much denigrated since he is no longer here to defend himself. As far as I am concerned his book is still the main reference.

1. George Madis, The Winchester Book (My copy is the First Edition with a last copyright date of 1977. Your copy may have the photos on different pages). I will refer to statements included in the captions below photos.
a. Top of page 327: "Very few special features will be found on the 45-70 and the 33 extra lightweight rifles."
b. Top of page 329: "Standard barrels for 33 caliber extra lightweight rifles were 24 inches in length while this rifle has the rare 22 inch length."
c. Second last photo on page 334: "Extra lightweight rifles were of two basic standard barrel styles: the 45-70 with 22 inch round barrel and the 33 caliber with a 24 inch round barrel."
d. Top of page 349: "Extra lightweight model rifles were offered in calibers 33 W.C.F. and 45-70 only. Any other calibers were considered specials, and we will rarely see any other calibers in these models."

2. Arthur Pirkle, Winchester Lever Action Repeating Firearms, volume 2, The Models of 1886 and 1892.
a. Appendix C, page 190, second last paragraph: " Winchester produced the Model 1886 "lightweight" and "extra" lightweight variations in .33 and .45-70 calibers, only. Any other caliber rifle, albeit one configured identically in every respect, was considered by Winchester to be a "special order" rifle."
b. Appendix C, page 191, last paragraph: " How do you tell the difference between lightweight and extra lightweight variations of the M1886? Examine the buttplates. The lightweight variations always had shotgun-type steel buttplates installed while the extra lightweight variations had shotgun type-hard rubber buttplates."

3. John T. Madl, Identifying your Model 1886 Winchester.
a. Page 48: Under the heading EXTRA LIGHT WEIGHT: "33 Cal. had a 24" barrel standard. 45 Cal. had a 22" barrel standard."

I rest my case and will end my side of the discussion with these statements from three different "Experts" who were or are a lot more knowledgeable about the Winchester Model 1886 than any of us armchair experts!

I am familiar with the work of all three of these "experts". I have all their literature and read it all, generally more than once, some several times. I have even shared correspondence with Madl in the past. I sure don't consider myself an expert in much of anything, but I do know enough based on more recent information / studies that while much of the work is very good, some, especially Madis' work, is way off on many things.
I seriously hope you are not inferring I am standing here denigrating Madis because he can no longer defend his work. It seems that recently anyone who points out flaws in his work is all of a sudden denigrating the man. I recently had an opportunity to by a Winchester that reportedly belonged to George, it was purchase from a good friend of his in Florida. I almost bought the gun just because it had belonged to him, and I respected what he did to get people interested in collecting Winchesters, and the work he dedicated himself to for so many years for this love. His book was also the very first book I bought on the subject and what got me really into this hobby. That said, as more and more research / surveys is and are done on Winchesters today - on several different models using various rigorous methods- and as more and more information that was not available at that time keeps surfacing (I.E. information that past employees hoarded away after Winchester closed its doors, or the Polishing Room Records now available at the Cody museum) it becomes more apparent that George was way off in many instances in a lot of his work. Whether it be on serial number dates, production numbers, number of calibers produced, etc, etc, I'm afraid I have lost a lot of confidence it his work. I am not alone in this. But, this is not denigrating anyone. This is being realistic. As time moves on, we often learn things we thought were the case, just may not have been. I have a lot of respect for what he did for us, but at the same time, I don't walk around with my head in the sand.
That all said, there are many "experts" out there - current and very, very studied and knowledgable men - who would argue there is no such thing as a 33 ELW. And they have valid points as well.
Personally - and that is just me - I would go with what was officially cataloged by the company, rather than with what collectors coined or what became common nomenclature in the collecting community.
Like I said before, they are all "light" compared to the standard 1886s. That is all I care when I cam carrying one in the fall.
Matt
P.S. For anyone interested in more discussion on the ELW / LW debate (also including comments about MADL and PIRKLE's thoughts alluded to by Tech551 above) take a read here or search extra lighweight using the search function of the WACA website. It has been discussed on many occasions over there by folks who have spent a lot of time studying the records / ledgers:

http://www.winchestercollector.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2081&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=extralightweight&start=0

Matt

Edit: Just found out that my 1886 ELW 45-70 short rifle with 20" barrel is on its way. Should have it next week. That is a rare bird. There were very few 86s made with 20" barrels, let alone as as ELW. I can only imagine how fast that one will come up to the shoulder. I will post pics when it is in hand. Now let's see some more photos!

 

[okcorral1881]

19'' Winchester 1892

Here is the lightest of all my Winchesters. I know that it doesn't have any collector value due to the hand checkering.... but I guess that it's seen lots of action...hunting, sleeping outside, around a campfire etc. Perfect little carbine to carry everywhere!

 

[Matt74]

That little carbine has character. Imagine the stories that ol gal could tell! Is it a 44 or 38 WCF? If the rifle buttstock is original to the gun, it is a special order, as is the half mag. The checkering just adds character!
Matt

 

[Mike Webb]

Regarding the LW/ELW discussion; Mr. Madis was THE pioneer is researching Winchester variations and devoted thousands of hours to the task, no doubt, but he made a few errors which is to be expected. I have been into Winchester collecting for 30+ years and have to side with Matt on this one, I don't think the .33 was made in extra lightweight designation. I good friend of mine owns around 40 1886 rifles and he feels the same. In another vein, ELW rifles had hollowed out buttstocks under the buttplate but not all of them did. Any idea on the ratio of hollowed out to solid and why the difference?

 

[CST Grad C.Nixon]

I hope that one of my kids does that for me someday! You are a good man.

Thanks for the kind words! Much appreciated!!!

 

[polkey]

M 95 flatside in 30-40, made 1896

 

[Matt74]

In another vein, ELW rifles had hollowed out buttstocks under the buttplate but not all of them did. Any idea on the ratio of hollowed out to solid and why the difference?

The comments from your friend is interesting. That is A LOT of 86s he owns, that must be something to see. Wow.
Now, this is just my thinking - but, why would Winchester call any gun in the 33 caliber a LW or ELW when the standard barrel for the 33 was already a rapid taper round (RTR) barrel. The RTR barrel for the 45-70 would be called ELW given the standard barrel for the 1886 in 45-70 was the 26" standard weight barrel.
No, I have no idea of the ratio of hollowed out buttstocks to solid Mike. I own and have seen both.
Of interest, here are some thoughts on that subject a couple years ago by an acqauintance of mine who collected ELWs and 33s for many years, and studied them religiously. He was - probably still is - the "go to guy" on these guns in the US.

"Based on my limited inspection of various "vintages" (1902 - 1932), styles (standard, semi-deluxe, and deluxe), and barrel lengths (20, 22, 24, and 26-inch are all I've personally inspected) of 33 WCF rifles and extra light weight .45-70's and .45-90's, here's what I can add to the discussion on the hollowed out area under the buttplate:
- I've never personally seen a deluxe or semi-deluxe that has been hollowed out.
- I've inspected far more extra lights that don't have the hollowed out spot than have it
- I can't find any consistent range of dates for when this was or was not done."

"Best I can tell, this area was hollowed out for balance rather than to reduce weight on the rifle, and may have been done on a case-by-case basis."

"On a related topic, Pirkle's book on the 1886 and 1892 contains some bad information on a related subject, stating that the difference between an 1886 "light weight" and "extra light weight" is whether it has a steel or hard rubber butt plate. I've never seen anything in ledger information that indicates this is true; in fact the only "bright line" in the use of those terms that I've seen would be based on the vintage. Specifically, some rifles made before the extra light was a catalogued item are noted as "special light weight" rifles; all ledger entries I've seen after that state "extra light"."

Interesting thoughts. That said, I went upstairs and pulled the buttplates off all of mine - with the exception of course of the 20" ELW which I won't have until next week. I'll take a look at that one then. Here is what I found:
1. My 33 Deluxe with FM is not hollowed out.
2. My 33 with 1/2 mag TD is not hollowed out.
3. My ELW 45-70 with 24" barrel, PPG, is not hollowed out.
4. My ELW 45-70 22" deluxe is hollowed out.
5. My ELW 45-90 22" is hollowed out.

There you go. Kind of interesting. All the 24" guns are not hollowed out, the 22s are. Yet, as my acquaintance noted, he had actually studied more ELWs that were not hollowed out than were, and that he had yet to see a deluxe ELW that was hollowed out, yet mine is. Leads more credence maybe to his comments that it seems to be a case by case basis. Doesn't seem to be any real rhyme or reason to it.

Matt

 

[Matt74]

Polkey: That is a very nice Flatside, the bluing is really nice. The Flatsides have a real unique and attractive look to them. Have you looked into how early a gun it is?
Matt

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

Beauty M95 you got there polkey! The 30-40 Krag is a great cartridge for reloaders.
Does she still shoot tight?
I'm still keeping my eyes peeled for one of the M95 Musket styled buggers in
7.62X54 that were sold to Russia in the Czarist era. Ruskies must have them stashed
in a warehouse somewhere.

 

[Mike Webb]

Thanks for the post, Matt and for pulling the buttplates off your 86's. I will see my 86 friend in a couple weeks and will ask him if I can pull the plates off his ELW rifles. The steel buttplate vs. hard rubber may just be a timeline thing. My 1894's with shotgun butts seem to switch to hard rubber buttplates sometime around 1909 instead of the steel. And that is a very nice 95 Flatside.

 

[Road King]

Thanks for the post, Matt and for pulling the buttplates off your 86's. I will see my 86 friend in a couple weeks and will ask him if I can pull the plates off his ELW rifles. The steel buttplate vs. hard rubber may just be a timeline thing. My 1894's with shotgun butts seem to switch to hard rubber buttplates sometime around 1909 instead of the steel. And that is a very nice 95 Flatside.

Mike here are some pictures of an '86 that your friend has and allowed me the take some pictures of this true LW .45-70. This could be one of the very earlist XLW that Winchester produced.

Here is the hollowed out butt stock

The barrel

The gun

Here is a .45-70 with LW barrel and full magazine. Notice the magazine is larger then the barrel.

Here are 3 '86s in .45-70, Left to right Xheavy 28" barrel, full mag, LW with full mag and XLW with button mag.

I always believed that the true XLW 86 rifle would be a buttom mag, 22" rapid tapered barrel and have hollowed out butt stock regardless as to how it may have been listed in the records from Winchester. Remember even these records have been proven wrong many times. But anything that would have been done to a standard configured rrifle to lighten it's weight could have been called a light weight rifle.

 

[Mike Webb]

Thanks for posting the pics. I don't know about the hollowed out butt thing. Two rifles could be identical in every respect except for the hollow butt. I don't know if Winchester catalogs ever mentioned the hollowed out wood? Not many things you can say about old Winchesters with absolute certainty, I guess.

 

[Bittermansbro]

Here's a bit o' #### for today.

I bought a Uberti 1873 short rifle a number of years ago for CAS and shot it like crazy. Its a good solid gun that's worn in just right. So finally last year I decided to take it to the next level and had the receiver engraved with a pattern I took out of The Winchester Book. When it came back I had it sent off to NS to get a nice bone charcoal case hardening. Got it back a couple weeks ago, had the barrel put back on and re-assembled it today.

Also I stripped the red Uberti lacquer finish and re-did the wood with a light stain and some coats of BLO. I left the dents and dings in to give it that character....

Took a couple pics with a factory Uberti 1873 to show a before and an after. Enjoy.

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

That's a purdy '73. Uberti makes good rifles that shoot well.
Vostrovia!

 

[freddyfour]

Bittermansbro, if you don't mind me asking how much to have all that done?