|
|
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,493
Posts562,053
Members14,585
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,516 Likes: 569
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,516 Likes: 569 |
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: 1,338 Likes: 76
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,338 Likes: 76 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
