|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,116
Posts570,731
Members14,671
| |
Most Online19,682
Mar 28th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,733 Likes: 698
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,733 Likes: 698 |
Thanks for that info, Tim.
The safety is a bit mickey-mouse, but seems functional.
Trigger pull is pretty awful, but I dont think that is unusual in a battle rifle.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/ ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,377 Likes: 87
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,377 Likes: 87 |
Ward-Burton? I've never really looked at them before. Rear locking lugs/threads? Interesting. The stock design and buttplate are very American. https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-ward-burton-rifle-america-s-first-military-bolt-action/On the one hand, it's wild to think our first military bolt gun was in 1871. On the other, the Swiss Vetterli of 1869 and updated as the 69/71 was also a bolt gun, but also a repeater, with 12 rounds of 41 cal fun in the tube below the barrel. Of course, the Swiss ripped off Winchester's cartridge lifter mechanism and only didn't sued by Winchester because they didn't recognize foreign patents. So the repeating part of that rifle owes credit to a US design of 1866. Thanks for the link, it was a good read and explains a lot as to why it wasn't accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
