Quoted:



You where doing well until the logic fail of 5E.  The 92 was never originally chambered for anything more powerful than the .44-40.   Now I understand your points but it is modern engineering and materials science that have allowed the .454 to be chambered in the 92 without worry.  Likewise engineering is a pretty exact science these days so if a manufacturer offers a firearm in a SAAMI standard cartridge you can be sure their lawyers are satisfied they are not going to be in court defending the company from liability claims and the accountants are satisfied they will not be paying for a mass recall.

Quoted:


No.  Mostly because there's a sharp difference of opinion regarding it's status as "BS".

  Fortunately, there's room for more than one opinion on the planet, and no need to bash anyone and everyone who disagrees with yours, so lighten up.

An opinion is exactly what you're submitting: "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."  Your opinion, my opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, has nothing to do with the subject, only facts do. We are all certainly free to assert our opinions, but I for one will not base decisions on a self prescribed experts opinion. Show me first hand evidence, and you'll have my undivided attention. If opinion were all that mattered, then I'd be levitating around my property checking the cows, fences, etc.


The OP can make his own call on the issue, but he's been duly warned of the potential consequences.

 Personally, I think getting an already expensive '73, spending more on a short stroke action job intended for fast and smooth operation with cowboy loads and then running it on a regular diet of full power .357 Mag loads is a little stupid.  

 And personally I think buying a .357 then being afraid to fire .357's in it is a little irrational. Why not just buy a '66 chambered in .38 Special?

----


To each his own, but let's make an informed decision and consider a few more things first:

1. Most loading manuals suggest maximum loads around 16,000 psi for original 1873's and I tend to take their advice fairly seriously.   Similarly, many experienced shooters prefer to limit their .357 Magnum loads to around  20,000-23,000 psi in a modern 1873 reproduction and you might want to consider that.

 It's closer to 14,000 psi and most advise BP only in the older Winchesters. (Of which I own two, FWIW, both over 125 years old)

 Who are these experienced shooters? You refer to them as though somewhere, there's some mass group of 1873 shooters who as a whole shoot low pressure .357 handloads in their rifles. If you're talking about CAS competitors, the ones with whom I have competed load and shoot .38's not because of their lower pressures. but for 1) economics and 2) speed.



2. Will a modern 1873 stand up to a limited number of full power 35,000 psi .357 mag rounds?  Absolutely.  In Italy arms are proof tested to 130% of the design pressure, so they'll even take 45,500 psi proof loads (at least once) without violently disassembling themselves, but that's not the same thing as saying it can stand many repetitions of that abuse.

Even the best steel has finite limits and carbon steel has an elastic limit as well as a fatigue limit.  What this means is that as long as you stay under the fatigue limit, you can expose the steel to an unlimited number of pressure cycles and not fatigue the steel.  It'll keep doing those pressure cycles forever.  There is also an elastic limit, and provided you don't exceed the elastic limit, the steel will return to its original shape/dimensions.   In between however is that grey area where you're exceeding the fatigue limit and taking useful life off the critical parts with each and every pressure cycle.  Eventually it's going to fail and in the 1873 it's the toggle link pin that fails first.

The trick then for longevity in an 1873 then is to operate it at pressures under the fatigue limit.   In the case of the 1873 it's pretty well documented that the toggle link pins get damaged over time with high pressure loads, resulting in excessive headspace.  Unfortunately,  I suspect most .357 Mag 1873 shooters don't own a set of head space gauges let alone check the head space periodically.   Consequently, I suspect most of the shooters with this condition in their .357 Mag 1873's  due to a steady diet of full power .357 mag loads don't notice the excessive headspace in anything other than shorter brass life.    

Thanks for the crash course in metallurgy, but unless you have the Rockwell numbers of the frame, links and pins, it's all irrelevant. My guess is these rifles will wear out from being cycled long, long before they'll wear out from being fired with the ammunition for which they're designed.



3. I also recommend you be careful about putting too much faith in the opinion of the engineers, unless you understand the base conditions and assumptions they were working from.   For example, the Model 19 was designed in .357 Magnum as arguably the ideal police duty revolver, and it was.  But is was designed on the assumption that practice would be done with .38 Special with the revolver being primarily shot with .38 Special and carried with .357 Magnum with a ratio of rounds fired of probably 100s to 1.  However when law enforcement agencies got sued for under training officers and switched to .357 mag for practice, some Model 19s with steady diets of .357 Mag started to show  up with cracked forcing cones.

Currently, S&W sells J-frame .357 Mag revolvers that have similarly slim forcing cones.  Why?  Because the S&W engineers are betting that the discomfort of shooting a light weight J-frame revolver with a full power .357 mag load will be sufficient to limit the round count to acceptable levels.  Change that assumption with a masochist who enjoys it, and you'll have a much greater potential to break the revolver as it's now being used in a manner that was not consistent with the design assumptions and the metal is being pushed past the fatigue limit.  

Engineers don't design things to be stronger, they design them be lighter and or simpler.  The goals is to perform a specific function with as light and simple or inexpensive a design as possible.  In that regard they consider the end use and how the end user will actually use it.

So I should listen to you rather than a firearms engineer? That's funny. Will you please provide the documentation from which you gleaned all this information? Especially all that about the S&W 19. Was it an internal memo or something available to the public?

 My FIL and stepfather are both engineers and the field in which I have worked for almost 16 years puts me in direct contact with engineers almost on a daily basis (My direct supervisor is an engineer). So I can tell you with 100% certainty that your statement regarding these educated individuals is ridiculously uninformed and doesn't even merit discussion.

Not long ago a gentleman related to me that he'd stopped by the Uberti booth and was quizzing the rep as to the strength of their 1873 where it pertained to the .44 Magnum chambering. He replied simply: "Why would we chamber a firearm for a cartridge it couldn't handle?" (Paraphrasing, of course)

 

4. How much more pressure are we talking about?

The standard pressure .44-40 had a base diameter of .471" and operated at 13,000 CUP and modern loads run around 12,500 psi max, while the .38-40 had a base diameter of .465 " and operated at 14,000 CUP and modern loads run around 13,500 psi max.  In comparison the .357 Mag has a base diameter of .379" operates at 35,000 psi and the .44 Mag has abase diameter of .457" and operates at 36, 000 psi.

 The rim is what exerts force on the bolt, not the internal diameter of the case.

 In terms of area times pressure, the .38-40 develops about 2,292 pounds of theoretical pressure on the bolt face, while the .44-40 develops about 2,177 pounds of pressure on the bolt face.  In comparison the .357 develops 3,948 pounds and the .44 Mag develops 5,904 pounds.  That's theoretical as some of the pressure is reduced by brass adhering to the chamber wall and the pressure needed to stretch the brass back against the bolt face.

 That means a modern 1873  in .357 Mag with its modern metallurgy but original design and dimensions has to withstand 172% of the pressure of the .38-40 in an original 1873.  A modern 1873 in .44 Mag would have to withstand 258% of the pressure of a .38-40 in the original. T

 The numbers are not absolute, but they are proportional as are the bolt forces produced and the percentages reflect the additional strength needed to accommodate the modern rounds.

Are you so delusional as to still believe that an 1873 produced this year is of the same strength as one produced 130 years ago???? For that matter even the '92's??





5. So the questions to ask yourself are:

A) How much stronger is a modern 1873 compared to an old one and where exactly does the fatigue limit lie (a tough one to answer); How much stronger are todays '98 Mausers than those produced 100 years ago? How much stronger are todays Colt SA's than those produced in 1880? How much stronger are the Ishapore 2A's (chambered for the 308 Win.) than their SMLE ancestor (Chambered for the much lower pressure .303 British) How much stronger are todays '92 Winchesters and their copies than those that are 100+ years old? You might want to snag a back issue of Handloader- January 1975 Issue and read Ken Waters article on loads for the 38-40. Or, here's all you really need to see:






Now, do you still think the metal and technology used then to  produce these rifles is still being used? Do you think the '92 in that article could've handled the pressure of a 454? A 44 Magnum or even a .357? Of course not. Technology has improved the strength of the '92 AND the '73. Accept and get used to that fact.


B) How many full power .357 Mag rounds did the engineers assume the average shorter would actually put through a new 1873 (many shooters shooting ."357 Mag" in their 1873's are using the longer .357 case for better accuracy/less bullet jump, but with .38 Special loads and pressures);

 Why don't you call or e-mail and ask them? Honestly, I think most folks spend way more time thinking about it than actually shooting.

C) Why do so many shooters refrain from full power loads in their modern 1873s in .357 Mag;

Again, who exactly?

D) How much increase in headspace am I willing to live with before I have it rebuilt; and

How will headspace increase? Have you ever actually looked at the inside of the action of a '66 or '73? Do you not realize that for headspace to increase you either have to compress the links or the mass of receiver metal behind them. The pins simply cannot bend because there's no place for them TO bend. There's absolutely no slack in any of my '73's that would allow headspace to increase without gross bolt thrust. The only way I could see headspace possible increasing is if the bolt were to flex.



E) If I'm going to shoot the rifle with full power .357 Mag loads, why not just get a much stronger Model 92 will handle this loads with ease?   (Since the Model 1892 is a design that handles 65,000 psi in the .454 Casull.)

 Why not? Because the '92's have a longer stroke and are far more prone to feeding issues due to the angle in which the cartridge enters the chamber. I own a '92 and have used it in CAS competition so I know this firsthand.



6) To me, It makes more sense to consider each of these issues in depth rather than to rely on a few case studies where shooters claim they've shot X number of rounds of unknown pressure through their 1873's with no obvious problems (but also no documentation that the head space is still right).

And again to me, it makes a lot more sense to use the right tool for the job and just get a Model 1892 if I want to shoot a steady diet of .357 Magnum loads, and reserve my 1873 for fast, slick shooting with light cowboy action loads.

But hey, it's American and we have both freedom of speech and freedom of choice, thank God, so the OP and the reader are free to make his or her own decision.

To me, it makes more sense to listen to the experience of others rather than anothers uniformed opinion that is based on their irrational fears. If the '73 brings fear and anxiety into your world, then by all means use your '92's, but don't try to force your irrational fears on the rest of us.

Quoted:


He didnt say it was designed for anything more than the 44-40. Only that the design could handle a .454.

I wonder what an original 92 could handle

Quoted:


 Steve might be a little biased towards '92's since that's how he makes his living, but I see his point to an extent. I'm sure it has alot to do with who/when manufactured the rifle and the quality of the metal therein. If the pins and the holes through which they pass are hard, I wouldn't expect much wear...sort of like a push rod being connected to a crankshaft. If the pins and their receptacles wear I'd think it'd almost have to be at everywhere except the receiver where the pins are pressed in an thus immovable.

I have a buddy that's a rabid CAS competitor and he recently retired so he's now shooting more than ever. To my knowledge he's been using the same Uberti '73 in .357 for 4 or 5 years. I think I'll give him a buzz and see what kind, if any, of trouble or maintenance issues he's had.

Quoted:


I'd like to see a .327 Magnum in either a 73 or 92. I think that would be a good round for hunting small to med size game,

Quoted:
 Steve might be a little biased towards '92's since that's how he makes his living, but I see his point to an extent. I'm sure it has alot to do with who/when manufactured the rifle and the quality of the metal therein. If the pins and the holes through which they pass are hard, I wouldn't expect much wear...sort of like a push rod being connected to a crankshaft. If the pins and their receptacles wear I'd think it'd almost have to be at everywhere except the receiver where the pins are pressed in an thus immovable.

Quoted:



If we accept that the originals where strong enough as designed for the .44-40 cartridge then we can prove modern metallurgy will allow the .357 to be safely fired.  According to your chart the .357 produces less than double the bolt thrust of the .44-40.  The original model 73 used a wrought iron frame.  Simply switching to 4140 steel doubles the yield strength and ultimate strength.

Quoted:

"Repair from being shot out of battery"

How did the stock get cracked? Man oh man would I be pissed.

Did the gunsmith own up to cracking the stock or was is like that before?

Quoted:

"Repair from being shot out of battery"

How did the stock get cracked? Man oh man would I be pissed.

Did the gunsmith own up to cracking the stock or was is like that before?

Quoted:


Unless he changed his modifications recently, Cody cuts and welds the upper part of the lever for his short-stroke, also the trigger and sear are welded together and the lever safety is removed.  Not hard to have an out of battery discharge.  Also on the cut and weld jobs the three toggle link pins are no longer in alignment.  That puts a lot of force on the pins that they were never designed to handle.  The strength in the toggle link action is the force from the bolt is directed straight through the links to the receiver.  When bolt, links and receiver are properly fitted, pins carry almost no load at all.  Short stroke kits that have replacement links and lifter arm maintain the proper geometry to safely distribute the bolt force to the receiver.

Another way to have an OOB discharge is if the firing pin return spring is lightened or removed (common on action jobs) and operator tries to force the lever closed (due to chamber obstruction or bulged case, etc.), the firing pin can impact the primer with enough force to detonate.  I have personally observed that happening.  Never force a lever closed on an Uberti '73.

I have rifles and carbines in .45 Colt and 38 WCF that I have used in competition since 1994, all have Pioneer Gun Works or Cowboy and Indian's shop short stroke kits.  Properly fitted and tuned, collectively a couple hundred thousand rounds downrange, and plenty of dry-firing, and only parts I have worn out are extractors.  No mouse fart loads either.


Usual damage from OOB discharge is a bent lever, and sometimes extractor.  Uberti levers are soft, you can sometimes bend them back once, and if you don't have any more problems or force it closed, it will last a while, but usually it bends again soon after.  Replace the lever or after bending it back have it re-heat treated.  Extractors are a consumable on '66's and '73's, always keep spares handy.